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

Smelting Company v. Kemp

• 1880 • 103 U.S. 666 • Waite Court
In the case of Smelting Company v. Kemp, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The plaintiff, the Smelting Company, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Kemp, to purchase ore from him. The contract stated that the ore was to be delivered to the Smelting Company at a certain price, and that the ore was to be of a certain quality. The Smelting Company alleged that the ore delivered by Kemp was not of...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: 1880
103 U.S. 666
26 L. Ed. 313
1880 U.S. LEXIS 2170

Smelting Company v. Kemp

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Smelting Company v. Kemp, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties was valid and enforceable. The plaintiff, the Smelting Company, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Kemp, to purchase ore from him. The contract stated that the ore was to be delivered to the Smelting Company at a certain price, and that the ore was to be of a certain quality. The Smelting Company alleged that the ore delivered by Kemp was not of the quality specified in the contract, and that they were therefore entitled to damages. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that the Smelting Company was entitled to damages. The Court found that the contract was clear and unambiguous, and that the parties had agreed to the terms of the contract. The Court also found that the ore delivered by Kemp was not of the quality specified in the contract, and that the Smelting Company was therefore entitled to damages. The Court held that the Smelting Company was entitled to recover the difference between the value of the ore as delivered and the value of the ore as specified in the contract.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In Smelting Company v. Kemp, the United States Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made in violation of an existing state law. The majority opinion held that the contract should not be enforced because it violated public policy and thus was voidable at the option of either party to the agreement. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that while contracts which violate public policy are generally unenforceable, there is no clear rule or precedent for such cases in this instance as both parties were acting in good faith and did not intend to break any laws. He argued further that if one party has already performed their part of the bargain then they should still receive compensation for their efforts regardless of any legal violations committed by either side during negotiations or execution of said agreement.

Opinion written by Justice MRWaite
Decided: Dec 06, 1880
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