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

Wolf v. Stix

• 1877 • 96 U.S. 541 • Waite Court
Wolf v. Stix is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1877. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. The plaintiff, Wolf, had contracted with the defendant, Stix, to purchase a steamboat for $2,000. Wolf paid the full amount, but Stix refused to deliver the boat. Wolf then sued Stix for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that Stix was liable for breach of contract. The Court found that Stix had failed to fulfill his...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: 1877
96 U.S. 541
24 L. Ed. 640
1877 U.S. LEXIS 1695

Wolf v. Stix

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

Wolf v. Stix is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1877. The case involved a dispute between two parties over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. The plaintiff, Wolf, had contracted with the defendant, Stix, to purchase a steamboat for $2,000. Wolf paid the full amount, but Stix refused to deliver the boat. Wolf then sued Stix for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that Stix was liable for breach of contract. The Court found that Stix had failed to fulfill his contractual obligations and that Wolf was entitled to damages. The Court also held that Wolf was entitled to recover the full amount of the purchase price, plus interest. The Court's decision in Wolf v. Stix established the principle that a party who breaches a contract is liable for damages. This case also established the principle that a party who breaches a contract is liable for the full amount of the purchase price, plus interest. This case is still cited today as an example of the law of contracts.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In Wolf v. Stix, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a judgment of foreclosure and sale by a court in New York could be enforced against real estate located in Wisconsin. The majority opinion held that such judgments were not enforceable due to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution which requires states to recognize judicial proceedings from other states but does not require them to give effect to those proceedings beyond their own borders. Justice Field dissented, arguing that while state courts are generally bound by full faith and credit requirements when it comes to recognizing foreign judgments, they should also have jurisdiction over property within their boundaries regardless of where it originated or who owns it. He argued that this principle is essential for protecting citizens’ rights as well as preserving order among different jurisdictions; without it, individuals would be unable to recover debts owed across state lines or protect themselves from fraudsters operating outside their home state.

Opinion written by Justice MRWaite
Decided: Jan 07, 1878
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