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

Little v. Bowers was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1881. The case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of land in the state of Arkansas. The plaintiff, Little, claimed that he had purchased the land from the defendant, Bowers, and that Bowers had failed to deliver the deed to him. Bowers argued that he had never sold the land to Little and that Little had no legal claim to it. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Little, ruling that Bowers had indeed sold the land to Little and that Little was entitled to the deed. The Court held that Bowers had made a binding contract with Little and that Little was entitled to the deed as a result. The Court also held that Bowers had breached the contract by failing to deliver the deed to Little. As a result, Little was awarded the deed to the land. The decision in Little v. Bowers established the principle that a contract is binding even if the parties do not have a written agreement. It also established that a party who fails to fulfill their obligations under a contract can be held liable for damages. This case has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving contract disputes.
In the case of Little v. Bowers, Justice Harlan wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had misapplied the law and failed to consider important facts. He believed that under existing legal precedent, it was clear that Mrs. Little's claim for damages should have been allowed to proceed as she had suffered an injury due to negligence on behalf of Mr. Bowers' part when he drove his car into her property without permission or warning. Furthermore, Justice Harlan noted that even if there were no prior cases directly addressing this issue, common sense would dictate such a result given the circumstances at hand; namely, Mr. Bower's reckless behavior caused damage and harm to Mrs. Little’s property and thus she should be compensated accordingly for her losses regardless of any technicalities regarding trespass laws or other similar matters raised by Mr. Bowers’ defense team during trial proceedings