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

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.
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.