Shepherd v. Hampton
Cases that cite this one
20 later published cases cite this decision.
- Missouri Furnace Co. v. Cochran (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania 1881)
- West v. Pritchard (Conn. 1848)
- Shaw v. Nudd (Mass. 1829)
- Houston v. Moore (Supreme Court of the United States 1818)
- Sult v. Leonard (District Court, W.D. North Carolina 1954)
- Hummel v. United States (Court of Claims 1923)
- Delaware & Hudson Canal Co. v. Mitchell (Ill. App. Ct. 1901)
- Reusens v. Mexican National Construction Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York 1884)
- Rose's Executors v. Bozeman (Ala. 1868)
- Northrup v. Cook (Mo. 1866)
- Kent v. Ginter (Ind. 1864)
- Rowland's Adm'rs v. Shelton (Ala. 1854)
- Davis v. Adams (Ala. 1850)
- Smith v. Dunlap (Ill. 1850)
- Suydam v. Jenkins, Sheriff (The Superior Court of New York City 1850)
- Furlong v. Polleys (Me. 1849)
- Willis v. Dudley (Ala. 1847)
- Pinkston v. Huie (Ala. 1846)
- Masterton & Smith v. Mayor of Brooklyn (New York Supreme Court 1845)
- Tayloe v. Turner (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia 1820)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opmiua of the court. The only question is, whether the price. of the article at the time of the breach of the contract, or at any subsequent time before suit brqught, const!-' ^es Ujg pr0per rule of damages in this case. The unanimo «8 opinion, of the - court' is, that the price of the article at the time it was to be delivered, is the measure of damages; For myself only, I can say that I should not think the rule would apply to a case where advances of money had been made by the purchaser under the contract; but I am not aware what would be ¡the opinion of .the court in such a case.
Tudgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.