Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractbreach of contractplaintiffdefendantdamagesbinding agreementcommon law
contractplaintiffstatutecorporation

Related Cases

Eller Media Corp. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 355 Fed.Appx. 340
View Case »
Stroud v. Denny’s Restaurant, Inc., 271 Or. 430, 532 P.2d 790
View Case »
Nickerson v. Stonebridge Life Ins. Co., 63 Cal.4th 363, 371 P.3d 242, 203 Cal.Rptr.3d 23, 16 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6028, 2016 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5547
View Case »
Siegall v. Solomon, 19 Ill.2d 145, 166 N.E.2d 5
View Case »
Williams v. Amoco Production Co., 241 Kan. 102, 734 P.2d 1113
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Miller v. Robertson, 266 U.S. 243, 45 S.Ct. 73, 69 L.Ed. 265

Facts

Frederick Y. Robertson, as assignee of the Mammoth Copper Mining Company, sued the Alien Property Custodian and others to recover damages for breach of a contract with German partners, Beer, Sondheimer & Co., who failed to purchase zinc ore as agreed. The contract specified the quantity and quality of ore to be delivered, and the seller was to bear freight charges. After the buyers rejected the ore, the seller resold it, leading to the dispute over the damages owed due to the breach.

The plaintiff below, Frederick Y. Robertson, is a citizen of the United States, and sued as assignee of the Mammoth Copper Mining Company, a Maine corporation, hereinafter called the ‘seller.’

Issue

Is the plaintiff's claim a 'debt' within the meaning of section 9 of the Trading with the Enemy Act?

1. Is plaintiff's claim a ‘debt’ within the meaning of section 9 of the act?

Rule

The term 'debt' in section 9 of the Trading with the Enemy Act is not limited to its common law meaning and includes claims for damages arising from breach of contract.

The meaning of the word ‘debt,’ as used in many statutes, is not restricted to demands enforceable in actions of debt.

Analysis

The court analyzed the contract and the circumstances surrounding its execution, determining that the parties intended to create a binding agreement for the sale of zinc ore. The court found that the seller had made reasonable efforts to fulfill the contract and that the buyers' refusal to accept the ore constituted a breach. The court also ruled that the seller's claim for damages was valid under the Trading with the Enemy Act.

The parties intended to make a contract—one to sell, and the other to buy, zinc ore.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the lower court's ruling in favor of the seller, upholding the damages awarded for the breach of contract and the allowance of interest from the date of demand.

Decree affirmed.

Who won?

Frederick Y. Robertson prevailed in the case because the court found that the contract was valid and enforceable, and the defendants breached the agreement by failing to accept the ore.

The District Court gave judgment in favor of the seller for $259,597.21 with costs.

You must be