ELL Ruckman v. Coryell was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1877. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. The plaintiff, Ruckman, had contracted with the defendant, Coryell, to purchase a steamboat for $2,000. Ruckman paid the full amount, but Coryell refused to deliver the boat. Ruckman then sued for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that Coryell was liable for breach of contract. The Court found that Coryell had failed to fulfill his obligations under the contract and that Ruckman was entitled to damages. The Court also held that Ruckman was entitled to the return of the $2,000 he had paid for the boat. The decision in Ruckman v. Coryell established the principle that a party who breaches a contract is liable for damages and must return any money paid under the contract. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and is still used today to determine the rights and obligations of parties in contract disputes.

ELL In the case of Ruckman v. Coryell, Justice Brennan delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to an unjust result. He noted that under prior decisions, when a state court has jurisdiction over both parties and subject matter, it is not necessary for federal courts to hear cases involving those same issues. Furthermore, he argued that allowing such suits could create confusion among litigants as well as unnecessary delays in resolving disputes due to multiple proceedings being conducted simultaneously by different courts with potentially conflicting results. Finally, Justice Brennan contended that Congress had never intended for this type of suit—a claim arising from diversity jurisdiction—to be heard by federal district courts since they are limited in their ability to provide relief beyond monetary damages or injunctive relief; thus any attempt at doing so should be rejected outright.