Arkansas Valley Smelting Co. v. Belden Mining Co.
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO. This was an action brought by a smelting company, incorporated by the laws of Missouri, against a mining company, incorporated by the laws of Maine, and both doing business in Colorado by virtue of a compliance with its laws, to recover damages for the breach of a contract to deliver ore, made by the defendant with Billing and Eilers, and assigned to the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO. This was an action brought by a smelting company, incorporated by the laws of Missouri, against a mining company, incorporated by the laws of Maine, and both doing business in Colorado by virtue of a compliance with its laws, to recover damages for the breach of a contract to deliver ore, made by the defendant with Billing and Eilers, and assigned to the plaintiff. The material allegations of the complaint were as follows: On July 12, 1881;' a contract in writing was made between the defendant of the first part and…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Gray
If the assignment to the plaintiff of the contract sued on was valid, the plaintiff is the real party in interest, and as such entitled, under the practice in Colorado, to maintain this action in its own name. Rev. Stat. § 914; Colorado Code of Civil Procedure, § 3; Albany & Rensselaer Co. v. Lundberg, 121 U. S. 451. The vital question in the case, therefore, is whether the contract between- the defendant and Billing and Eilers was assignable by the latter, under the circumstances stated in the complaint.
At the present day, no doubt, an agreement to pay money, or to deliver goods, may be…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Devlin v. Mayor of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Boston Ice Co. v. PotterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1877
- Winchester v. HowardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1867
- Murray v. . HarwayNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Albany & Rensselaer Co. v. LundbergSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by195 opinions
- Delaware County Commissioners v. Diebold Safe & Lock Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Burck v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Cincinnati Siemens-Lungren Gas Illuminating Co. v. Western Siemens-Lungren Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Florance v. KresgeCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1938
- Stanley Clayman and Melvin Clayman v. Goodman Properties, IncCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1974
190 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.