Skip to main content
· 5/14/1894

Anvil Mining Co. v. Humble

Citations

  • 153 U.S. 540
  • 14 S. Ct. 876
  • 38 L. Ed. 814
  • 1894 U.S. LEXIS 2203

Syllabus

<p>A provision in a contract for the mining, removing, and loading by the party of the first part of ore from a mine of the party of the second part, that the party of the second part may be at liberty to terminate it at any time when he shall' be satisfied that the system employed by the party of the first part is prejudicial to the welfare and development of the mine, and that, in that event, there shall be a reference to determine the damages sustained by the party of the first part by reason of the termination, does not give the party of the second part a right arbitrarily to terminate the contract, but only to do so when it is determined that the system employed is prejudicial to the future welfare and development of the mine.</p> <p>A contract made for the extract of ore from the first level of a mine provided that the ore should contain at least 56 per cent of metallic iron. Subsequently the parties extended the contract so as to include the ore contained on and above the second and third levels, with the exception that the ore extracted under this contract should contain at least 58 per cent of metallic ore. Held, that this stipulation was applicable only to the ore taken from the second and third levels.</p> <p>Whenever one party to a contract is guilty of such a breach as is here attributed to the defendant the other party may treat the contract as broken, and may abandon it, and recover as damages the profits he would have received through full performance, which measure of profits was within the intent of both parties when the contract was made, and could be ascertained without difficulty.</p> <p>A letter of a party to the suit bearing upon the issues introduced in evidence against him, may be explained by him as a witness in his own behalf, and its effect upon the issues and the force of the explanation are proper subjects for the consideration of the jury.</p> <p>By the terms of the contract in this case the amount due the plaintiffs from time to time

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • “Generally speaking, it is true that when a contract is not performed the party who is guilty of the first breach is the one upon whom rests all the liability for the nonperformance.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Brewer

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.