Wiki Law School will soon be moving! Please update your bookmarks. Our future address is www.wikilawschool.org |
Minneapolis v. Columbus: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
*Subsequently, Columbus became un-responsive to several letters from the buyer Minneapolis. | *Subsequently, Columbus became un-responsive to several letters from the buyer Minneapolis. | ||
*Finally, on January 19th 1880, Columbus announced that there was no contract. | *Finally, on January 19th 1880, Columbus announced that there was no contract. | ||
*[[File:Minneapolis v. Columbus (SCOTUS 1886).png|thumb|Quimbee timeline ]] | |||
* | * | ||
* | * |
Revision as of 19:31, December 10, 2023
Minneapolis v. Columbus | |
Court | Supreme Court of the United States |
---|---|
Citation | 119 U.S. 149 |
Date decided | November 29, 1886 |
Facts
- Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Co. = "Minneapolis" = plaintiff = a train company based in Minnesota = a company needing iron for its railways = iron buyer
- Columbus Rolling-Mill Co. = "Columbus" = defendant = an iron manufacturer = iron seller
- On December 5, 1879, Minneapolis wrote a letter to Columbus requesting a quote for the price of 2,000 to 5,000 tons of iron rails.
- Columbus offered to sell irons to Minneapolis for $54/ton if such large quantity was needed.
- Subsequently, Columbus became un-responsive to several letters from the buyer Minneapolis.
- Finally, on January 19th 1880, Columbus announced that there was no contract.
Procedural History
- Minneapolis sued Columbus in federal district court.
- Minneapolis sought to enforce a December 19th 1879 contract for 2,000 tons of iron rails at $54/ton.
Arguments
Columbus contended that there was no contract.
Resources