In an action in the district court between citizens of different
states wherein plaintiff seeks to recover the agreed price of goods
which defendant agreed to buy but refused to accept, and where
plaintiff alleges that, upon defendant's refusal, plaintiff
rescinded the contract and, in his own right, retook the goods,
which then had no value and could not be sold, and a year later,
when they had acquired value, resold them as his own to a third
person for a price alleged, the price received at the resale is not
to be deducted from the plaintiff's demand in determining whether
the jurisdictional amount is in controversy. P.
267 U. S.
227.
Reversed.
Error to a judgment of the district court dismissing an action
on contract for want of jurisdiction.
Page 267 U. S. 227
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an action to recover damages for breach of a contract to
purchase 80,000 pounds of Badex, a foodstuff. The defendant
demurred because, as it alleged, the petition showed that the
amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, did not
exceed the sum of $3,000, and the action was dismissed by the
district court on that ground. Judicial Code, ยง 24. The case comes
here on that single question, as determining the jurisdiction of
the district court.
The material allegations are that the agreed price was $5,800;
that, at the time of the breach, no price could be got for the
goods, and that they had no value then in the market or elsewhere;
that, upon the breach, the plaintiffs took possession of them as
their own, and that nearly a year later they sold the same as their
own to third persons for $4,521.95, but it is expressly denied that
the plaintiffs sold on behalf of the defendant. The position of the
defendant is that the price realized, even if diminished by
transportation charges of $620.45, must be deducted from the
contract price and leaves less than $3,000. We presume that the
district court took the same view, although its opinion referred to
in the judgment is not printed as it should have been.Rule 8. But
obviously the plaintiffs have a claim that cannot be dismissed as
absurd, and on which they are entitled to the judgment of the
Court. Their allegations are that, on the unjustified refusal of
the defendant to accept the Badex, they rescinded the transaction,
and they argue that, when they did so, their rights against the
defendant became fixed, and that what they may have done a year
afterwards was wholly their own affair. The cases where, instead of
rescinding, the seller sells for the buyer's account have no
application. The breach of contract occurred in Louisville,
Kentucky, where possibly the contract was made. If the case is
governed
Page 267 U. S. 228
by the law of that state, as to which it would be premature to
express an opinion, we infer that the plaintiffs' argument probably
would be regarded as correct.
Zinsmeister v. Rock Island
Canning Co., 145 Ky. 25, 31.
See further Dustan v.
McAndrew, 44 N.Y. 72, 78;
Van Brocklen v. Smeallie,
140 N.Y. 70, 75. At all events, the plaintiffs are entitled to try
their case.
Judgment reversed.