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

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.
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