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

Little v. Bowers

• 1889 • 134 U.S. 547 • Fuller Court
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...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 Fuller Court
Term: 1889
Docket: 194
134 U.S. 547
10 S. Ct. 620
33 L. Ed. 1016
1890 U.S. LEXIS 1995
Argued: Mar 03, 1890

Little v. Bowers

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

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.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

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

Opinion written by Justice LQLamar
Decided: Apr 07, 1890
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