Felder v. Reeth
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
34 F.2d 744 (1929)
- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
Felder and others (plaintiffs) sued in district court in the then-territory of Alaska to recover $5,402.65 for goods, wares, and merchandise sold to Reeth (defendant) and for Reeth’s checks cashed by the plaintiffs. Reeth admitted to the money obligation but counterclaimed for the conversion and sale of his mining equipment and machinery. In his counterclaim, Reeth waived the tort involved in the conversion. Instead, Reeth relied upon an implied contract created by law, whereby the plaintiffs owed him the reasonable value of the machinery and equipment. Reeth argued that the reasonable value of the equipment was $10,000. The plaintiffs admitted to taking the mining equipment and alleged that the equipment had been taken to save it from total destruction by the flooding of the river banks on which the equipment had been placed. The plaintiffs further stated that they had sold the equipment for $550, which was its reasonable value in the region. The district court held that Reeth owed the plaintiffs $8,690.21 and that the plaintiffs owed Reeth $12,480 including interest, and rendered judgment in Reeth’s favor for the difference. The district court found that the reasonable value of the mining equipment at the time and place of the taking was $8,000 based on the use that Reeth could put the equipment to, despite the fact that the equipment had no market value. The plaintiffs appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wilbur, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.