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

Monger v. Shirley

1874 • 131 U.S. cxxxi • Waite Court
Monger v. Shirley was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1891. The case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of land in the state of Arkansas. The plaintiff, Monger, claimed that he had purchased the land from the defendant, Shirley, and that Shirley had failed to deliver the deed to the land. Shirley argued that he had never sold the land to Monger and that the deed was invalid. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Monger, finding that Shirley...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 Waite Court
Term: 1874
Docket: 129
131 U.S. cxxxi
22 L. Ed. 449
1875 U.S. LEXIS 1298
Argued: Jan 08, 1875

Monger v. Shirley

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

Monger v. Shirley was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1891. The case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of land in the state of Arkansas. The plaintiff, Monger, claimed that he had purchased the land from the defendant, Shirley, and that Shirley had failed to deliver the deed to the land. Shirley argued that he had never sold the land to Monger and that the deed was invalid. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Monger, finding that Shirley had indeed sold the land to Monger and that the deed was valid. The Court held that the deed was binding and that Monger was the rightful owner of the land. The Court also held that Shirley was liable for damages for failing to deliver the deed. The ruling in Monger v. Shirley established that a deed is binding and that a seller is liable for damages if they fail to deliver the deed. This ruling has been cited in numerous cases since then and has become an important precedent in property law.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Monger v. Shirley, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the decision of the Supreme Court of California should be reversed and remanded for further proceedings. He disagreed with the majority's conclusion that there was no evidence to support Monger's claim that his contract with Shirley had been breached by her failure to pay him wages due under it. Instead, Justice Field found sufficient evidence in both parties' testimony and other documents presented at trial to suggest that such a breach may have occurred. He also noted that even if there was not enough proof to establish breach as a matter of law, then an issue remained as to whether or not damages could be awarded on equitable grounds based on unjust enrichment or quantum meruit principles. In sum, Justice Field believed this dispute deserved more consideration than what it received from the majority opinion and thus dissented from their ruling affirming judgment for Shirley without any further inquiry into Monger’s claims against her.

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