Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Cleveland-cliffs Iron Company Et Al. v. Arctic Iron Company

• 1918 • 248 U.S. 178 • White Court
In the 1918 case of Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Company et al. v. Arctic Iron Company, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over iron ore property rights in Minnesota. The plaintiffs, Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co., and others had purchased certain lands for their valuable iron deposits from the state of Minnesota under an agreement that they would mine these resources within a specified period or forfeit them back to the state. However, before this deadline was reached, another company - Arctic...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief White Court
Term: 1918
Docket: 75
248 U.S. 178
39 S. Ct. 91
63 L. Ed. 198
1918 U.S. LEXIS 1660
Argued: Nov 22, 1918

Cleveland-cliffs Iron Company Et Al. v. Arctic Iron Company

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the 1918 case of Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Company et al. v. Arctic Iron Company, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over iron ore property rights in Minnesota. The plaintiffs, Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Co., and others had purchased certain lands for their valuable iron deposits from the state of Minnesota under an agreement that they would mine these resources within a specified period or forfeit them back to the state. However, before this deadline was reached, another company - Arctic Iron Co., claimed ownership based on federal land patents granted earlier but not recorded until after Cleveland-Cliffs' purchase from the state. The court ruled in favor of Cleveland Cliffs and its co-complainants stating that while both parties had valid claims to title at different times under different laws (state vs federal), priority should be given to those who first developed and utilized these resources as intended by public policy objectives underlying such grants i.e., promoting mining activities rather than mere speculation or holding for future appreciation.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Cleveland-Cliffs Iron Company v. Arctic Iron Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Cleveland-Cliffs failed to properly consider key aspects of contract law and equity. The dissenting justices believed that Arctic Iron had indeed fulfilled its contractual obligations by making reasonable efforts to secure necessary equipment and labor during wartime conditions, which were beyond their control. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "reasonable time" within the context of contract performance, arguing that such terms should be evaluated based on circumstances surrounding each individual case rather than rigidly defined standards. Furthermore, they contended that even if Arctic Iron did breach its agreement as claimed by Cleveland-Cliffs, any damages awarded should have been limited to actual losses suffered instead of unjust enrichment or speculative profits.

Opinion written by Justice EDEWhite
Decided: Dec 23, 1918
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms