Citation network
Elmendorf Vs. Taylor
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 01, 1825
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 152 (1825) U.S. Supreme Court Elmendorf v. TaylorSearch
-
U.S. 10 Wheat. 152 152 (1825) Elmendorf v. TaylorSearch
-
months -- has never been determined in the negative. The first case of which we have any knowledge is Sinclair v. SingletonSearch
-
the date of the survey. The next case in which the question was directly Page 23 U. S. 161 made is Key v. MatsonSearch
-
that an entry made after the expiration of three months from the date of the survey, would be equally invalid. Moore v. WhitlegeSearch
-
Hardin 89, and Respass v. ArnoldSearch
-
Hardin 115, decided in the spring of 1807, were on the authority of Key v. MatsonSearch
-
and were also cases in which the entries were made a few weeks after the surveys. The case of Cartwright v. CollierSearch
-
decided in the spring of 1808, was one in which the entry was made only fifteen days after the survey. In Ward v. LeeSearch
-
but it was made in a case in which that point did not occur. The case of Cleland's Heirs v. GraySearch
-
In the case of Galloway v. NealeSearch
-
did not arise. The survey had preceded the entry which called for it, more than twelve months. The cases of Davis v. BryanSearch
-
Bibb 113, and Davis v. DavisSearch
-
only in cases in which the point did not occur. The first case in which the point actually occurred was Carson v. HanwaySearch
-
At the preceding term, before the same judges, the case of Bush v. JamisonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
in presumption of law, was in the mind of the court, and that its former adjudications were considered. Reed's Heirs v. DinwiddieSearch
-
Jackman's Heirs v. Walker'sSearch
-
their obligation. Their application, we believe, has never been controverted, and in the recent case of Thomas v. Harvie'sSearch
-
and if the one rule or the other has been positively adopted, it ought to be respected. In the case of Jenner v. TracySearch
-
It is added that the same rule was agreed in the case of Belch v. HarveySearch
-
The case of Cook v. ArnhamSearch
-
The case of Bond v. HopkinsSearch
-
equity of the plaintiffs, unaffected by the lapse of time, and of this opinion was the court. The case of Hovenden v. LordSearch
-
This question was fully discussed, and solemnly, and, we think, finally decided in the case of Marquis Cholmondeley v. LordSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Elmendorf v. TaylorSearch
-
Sinclair v. SingletonSearch
-
Key v. MatsonSearch
-
Moore v. WhitlegeSearch
-
and Respass v. ArnoldSearch
-
of Key v. MatsonSearch
-
of Cartwright v. CollierSearch
-
In Ward v. LeeSearch
-
of Cleland's Heirs v. GraySearch
-
of Galloway v. NealeSearch
-
of Davis v. BryanSearch
-
and Davis v. DavisSearch
-
Carson v. HanwaySearch
-
of Bush v. JamisonSearch
-
Reed's Heirs v. DinwiddieSearch
-
of Thomas v. Harvie'sSearch
-
of Jenner v. TracySearch
-
of Belch v. HarveySearch
-
of Cook v. ArnhamSearch
-
of Bond v. HopkinsSearch
-
of Hovenden v. LordSearch
-
of Marquis Cholmondeley v. LordSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial