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

Hurlbut v. Schillinger was a Supreme Court case from 1877. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a piece of land. The plaintiff, Hurlbut, had agreed to purchase the land from the defendant, Schillinger, for $2,000. Hurlbut paid the full amount, but Schillinger refused to transfer the deed to the land. Hurlbut then sued Schillinger for breach of contract. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hurlbut, finding that Schillinger had breached the contract by refusing to transfer the deed. The Court held that Schillinger was liable for damages, and ordered him to pay Hurlbut the full amount of the purchase price plus interest. The Court also held that Schillinger was liable for any costs incurred by Hurlbut in bringing the suit. The decision in Hurlbut v. Schillinger established the principle that a party who breaches a contract is liable for damages, and that the other party is entitled to recover the full amount of the purchase price plus interest and any costs incurred in bringing the suit. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and is still an important part of contract law today.
In the case of Hurlbut v. Schillinger, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was based on an incorrect interpretation of the law and would have far-reaching implications for future cases involving similar facts. He noted that under existing precedent, it was clear that a contract could be enforced even if one party had not fully performed their obligations as long as they had made some effort to do so. In this case, he argued, Schillinger had done just that by making payments towards his debt despite being unable to pay off all of it due to financial hardship caused by illness and other circumstances beyond his control. As such, Field concluded that there were sufficient grounds for enforcing the contract between Hurlbut and Schillinger and reversing the lower court's ruling in favor of Hurlbut should have been granted instead.