| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

This case was a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a piece of land. Cornelius Marckwald, the plaintiff, had entered into a contract with the defendant, John Cornely, to purchase a piece of land. Marckwald had paid Cornely a portion of the purchase price, but Cornely refused to convey the land to Marckwald. Marckwald then brought suit against Cornely for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that Marckwald was entitled to specific performance of the contract. The Court found that Marckwald had fully performed his part of the contract and that Cornely had breached the contract by refusing to convey the land. The Court also held that Marckwald was entitled to damages for the breach of contract. The Court noted that Marckwald had paid the full purchase price and that Cornely had not provided any consideration for the contract. The Court also noted that Marckwald had been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and that Cornely had not provided any valid excuse for his refusal to convey the land. The Court concluded that Marckwald was entitled to specific performance of the contract and to damages for the breach of contract. The Court ordered Cornely to convey the land to Marckwald and to pay Marckwald damages for the breach of contract.
In the case of Cornely v. Marckwald, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plaintiff had not been given due process under the law. He noted that although it was true that there were certain legal requirements for bringing an action against another party, those same requirements did not apply to cases involving public officers or corporations. In this particular instance, he felt that since no notice had been given to either party prior to filing suit and no opportunity for defense was provided before judgment was rendered, then justice had not truly been served. Furthermore, Justice Field believed that such proceedings should be conducted with greater fairness and impartiality than what occurred here in order to ensure all parties are treated equally under the law.