Citation network
Miller Vs. Robertson
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Nov 17, 1924
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
-
U.S. 243 (1924) U.S. Supreme Court Miller v. RobertsonSearch
-
U.S. 243 (1924) Miller v. RobertsonSearch
-
of appeals affirmed the decree, except that the amount of interest allowed by the trial court was increased. Robertson v. MillerSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
construed to effect the purposes of Congress and to give remedy in all cases intended to be covered. United States v. AndersonSearch
-
interpretation or by unnecessarily restricting the meaning of the word within technical limitations. United States v. FreemanSearch
-
debt, such as those arising Page 266 U. S. 249 on bonds, notes, and other express promises to pay, Raborg v. PeytonSearch
-
United States v. ColtSearch
-
Fed.Cas. 581, No. 14,839, quantum meruit, and quantum valebat. Smith v. FirstSearch
-
Norris v. SchoolSearch
-
Jenkins v. RichardsonSearch
-
Mahaffey v. PettySearch
-
said ( Mill Dam Foundery v. HoveySearch
-
Minor v. Mechanics'Search
-
De Ganay v. LedererSearch
-
contract. No reason has been shown why the findings of the lower courts should be disturbed. Washington Securities Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
to this suit was a party to that contract, and parol evidence was given to show what ore was covered. Barreda v. SilsbeeSearch
-
Central Coal & Coke Co. v. GoodSearch
-
appeal. It must be taken as established that the resale was made in good faith for the best obtainable price. Crawford v. NealSearch
-
held the attempted service to amount to a demand, and that interest might be allowed from that date. See Goddard v. FosterSearch
-
United States v. PoulsonSearch
-
Dwyer v. UnitedSearch
-
Mather v. StokelySearch
-
F. 764, 767. While the suit, as held in Banco Mexicano v. DeutscheSearch
-
Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. UnitedSearch
-
apply. Compensation is a fundamental principle of damages, whether the action is in contract or in tort. Wicker v. HoppockSearch
-
is entitled to be put in as good a position pecuniarily as he would have been by performance of the contract. Curtis v. InneraritySearch
-
have been Page 266 U. S. 258 made. Both in law and in equity, interest is allowed on money due. Spalding v. MasonSearch
-
U. S. 375 , 161 U. S. 396 . Generally, interest is not allowed upon unliquidated damages. Mowry v. WhitneySearch
-
in the exercise of a sound discretion, may include interest or its equivalent as an element of damages. See Bernhard v. RochesterSearch
-
Frazer v. BigelowSearch
-
Faber v. CitySearch
-
Demotte v. WhybrowSearch
-
amount it received on resale. Payment in 1924 or later of that sum is not full compensation. Cf. Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. UnitedSearch
-
Conn v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
Yeaton v. BerneySearch
-
Gates v. UnionSearch
-
Central Trust Co. v. ChicagoSearch
-
Fisher v. ConsequaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial