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

Wills v. Russell

• 1879 • 100 U.S. 621 • Waite Court
Wills v. Russell is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1879. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. The plaintiff, Wills, had contracted with the defendant, Russell, to purchase a steamboat for $2,000. Wills paid the full amount, but Russell refused to deliver the boat. Wills then sued Russell for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that Russell was liable for breach of contract. The Court found that the contract...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: 1879
Docket: 126
100 U.S. 621
25 L. Ed. 607
1879 U.S. LEXIS 1859
Argued: Dec 19, 1879

Wills v. Russell

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

Wills v. Russell is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1879. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. The plaintiff, Wills, had contracted with the defendant, Russell, to purchase a steamboat for $2,000. Wills paid the full amount, but Russell refused to deliver the boat. Wills then sued Russell for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that Russell was liable for breach of contract. The Court found that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Russell had breached it by failing to deliver the boat. The Court also held that Wills was entitled to damages for the breach, and that he was entitled to recover the full amount of the purchase price, plus interest. The Court's decision in Wills v. Russell established the principle that a party who breaches a contract is liable for damages, and that the damages should be equal to the amount of the purchase price, plus interest. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since then, and is still an important part of contract law today.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Wills v. Russell, arguing that the majority had failed to consider a key point of law. He argued that under California law, when an individual dies without leaving a will and has no heirs or other legal representatives, their estate is subject to escheat - meaning it passes into public ownership. In this case, he argued that since there were no known heirs or legal representatives for Mrs. Wills' deceased husband at the time she brought her claim against his estate (which was after his death), then any property belonging to him should have already passed into public ownership before she made her claim and thus could not be claimed by her as part of his estate. Therefore Justice Field concluded that Mrs. Wills did not have standing to bring suit against Mr Russell over alleged debts owed by her late husband's estate because those assets would already belong to the state due to escheatment laws prior to Mrs Will's filing of suit against Mr Russell

Opinion written by Justice NClifford
Decided: Jan 05, 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