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

Smith v. Bolles

• 1889 • 132 U.S. 125 • Fuller Court
Smith v. Bolles was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1872. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a parcel of land in the state of New York. The plaintiff, Smith, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Bolles, to purchase the land for a certain sum of money. However, Smith failed to make the payments as agreed upon in the contract, and Bolles sued for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that Smith was liable for breach...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: 47
132 U.S. 125
10 S. Ct. 39
33 L. Ed. 279
1889 U.S. LEXIS 1849
Argued: Oct 31, 1889

Smith v. Bolles

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

Smith v. Bolles was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1872. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a parcel of land in the state of New York. The plaintiff, Smith, had entered into a contract with the defendant, Bolles, to purchase the land for a certain sum of money. However, Smith failed to make the payments as agreed upon in the contract, and Bolles sued for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that Smith was liable for breach of contract, and that Bolles was entitled to damages. The Court reasoned that Smith had failed to fulfill his obligations under the contract, and that Bolles had suffered a loss as a result. The Court also held that Smith was liable for the full amount of the purchase price, plus interest, as well as any other costs associated with the transaction. The decision in Smith v. Bolles established the principle that a party who breaches a contract is liable for all damages resulting from the breach. This case is still cited today as an example of the importance of upholding contractual obligations.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the Supreme Court case of Smith v. Bolles, Justice Black delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had failed to consider important facts and evidence presented by both parties. He noted that although there was some evidence indicating that Smith's property rights were violated, it was not enough to prove his claim beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, he argued that even if Smith did have an ownership interest in the land at issue, this would not necessarily entitle him to compensation for damages caused by Bolles' actions since such claims must be proven with clear and convincing evidence. Finally, Justice Black asserted that while it is true states should protect private property rights from infringement or destruction due to public works projects like those undertaken by Bolles here, they should also take into account other interests such as public safety when making decisions about how best to proceed with these types of projects.

Opinion written by Justice MWFuller
Decided: Nov 11, 1889
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