Citation network
Sun Printing and Publishing Ass'n Vs. Moore
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 13, 1902
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
-
Sun Printing & Publishing Ass'n v. MooreSearch
-
U.S. 642 (1902) U.S. Supreme Court Sun Printing & Publishing Ass'n v. MooreSearch
-
U.S. 642 (1902) Sun Printing and Publishing Association v. MooreSearch
-
The rule of law to be applied in the determination of this question is thus expressed in Whitney v. WymanSearch
-
must be under seal, and must purport to be his deed, and not the deed of the agent covenanting for him. Stanton v. CampSearch
-
this was a disclosure of the principal, and an apt manner of expressing an intent to bind such principal. Bradstreet v. BakerSearch
-
Tucker Manufacturing Company v. FairbanksSearch
-
of the association, in whom was lodged the power to manage the concerns of the company. Bank of United States v. DandridgeSearch
-
Railroad Company v. HooperSearch
-
U. S. 514 , 160 U. S. 519 , and cases cited. As said in Mining Co. v. Anglo-CaliforniaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
prima facie to do any act which the directors or trustees of the corporation could authorize or ratify. Oaks v. CattaraugusSearch
-
to establish that Lord did not possess the authority he assumed to exercise in executing the contracts. Patterson v. RobinsonSearch
-
without his fault. Such is the universal principle. This rule was tersely stated by Mr. Justice Bradley in Clark v. UnitedSearch
-
his fault, the contract embracing such liability is controlling, and must be enforced according to its terms. In Sturm v. BokerSearch
-
upon those who enter into them was, in substance, but a reiteration of the principle clearly announced in Dermott v. JonesSearch
-
Among the cases approvingly referred to in Dermott v. JonesSearch
-
were Bullock v. DommittSearch
-
T.R. 650, and Brecknock Co. v. PritchardSearch
-
in passing that the principle sustained by these last-mentioned authorities is supported by many adjudications. Young v. LearySearch
-
passing to this question, however, we remark that we have not entered into any extended review of the case of Young v. LearySearch
-
Y. 569, and the conflict of view asserted in argument to exist between the ruling in that case and that made in Steele v. BuckSearch
-
Drake v. WhiteSearch
-
Mass. 10, and Harvey v. MurraySearch
-
Mass. 377. We have not done so because, as we have seen in Page 183 U. S. 657 the opinion in Young v. LearySearch
-
doctrine of penalties and liquidated damages expressed in the reasoning of the opinions in Chicago House-Wrecking Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
States, (1901) 106 F. 385, 389, and Gay Manufacturing Co. v. CampSearch
-
judgment, when entered for the plaintiff, was for the amount of the penalty as of course. Watts v. CamorsSearch
-
Story, Eq.Jur. sec. 1318. And as long ago as 1768, Lord Mansfield, in Lowe v. PeersSearch
-
Commenting upon the judgment of Lord Eldon in one of the leading cases on the subject of liquidated damages ( Astley v. WeldonSearch
-
Bos. & Pul. 346, 350), Jessel, Master of the Rolls, in Wallis v. SmithSearch
-
uncertain and have been liquidated by an agreement, to enforce the contract. Thus, Chief Justice Marshall, in Tayloe v. SandifordSearch
-
The plaintiff in error relies on the case of Fletcher v. DycheSearch
-
In Van Buren v. DiggesSearch
-
Quinn v. UnitedSearch
-
determine the quantum of damages for a breach of an agreement where the damage is of an uncertain nature. Irving v. ManningSearch
-
Ranger v. GreatSearch
-
Dimech v. CorlettSearch
-
Lord Elphinstone v. MonklandSearch
-
Price v. GreenSearch
-
W. 346, 354. We content ourselves with a few brief excerpts from some of the decisions just referred to. In Ranger v. GreatSearch
-
In Lord Elphinstone v. MonklandSearch
-
In Irving v. ManningSearch
-
opinion of the judges was delivered by Mr. Justice Patterson, and we excerpt from the opinion of that justice in Price v. GreenSearch
-
In Wallis v. SmithSearch
-
the stipulated sum is embraced in the category of liquidated damages. Page 183 U. S. 667 In Strickland v. WilliamsSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial