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

Holyoke Company v. Lyman was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1872. The case involved a dispute between the Holyoke Company and Lyman, a former employee of the company. The Holyoke Company had sued Lyman for breach of contract, claiming that he had failed to fulfill his contractual obligations. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Holyoke Company, finding that Lyman had indeed breached his contract. The Court held that Lyman had failed to perform his duties as outlined in the contract, and that the Holyoke Company was entitled to damages for the breach. The Court also held that the Holyoke Company was entitled to an injunction against Lyman, preventing him from engaging in any further breaches of the contract. The Court's decision in Holyoke Company v. Lyman established the principle that a breach of contract can result in both damages and an injunction against the breaching party. This case is still cited today as an example of the legal remedies available to parties who have been wronged by a breach of contract.
In the case of Holyoke Company v. Lyman, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made in violation of a state statute. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable and thus ruled against Lyman's claim for damages from Holyoke Company. However, Justice Field dissented from this ruling on the grounds that there was no evidence to suggest that either party knew or should have known about the relevant state law at issue when they entered into their agreement. He argued further that if one party had knowledge of an applicable law while entering into a contract then it would be reasonable to expect them to inform their counterpart before signing any agreements; however, since neither side here seemed aware of any potential legal issues surrounding their transaction, he concluded that enforcing this particular contract would not violate public policy and should therefore stand as valid under common law principles.