Citation network
Bell Vs. Morrison
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 01, 1828
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. 351 (1828) U.S. Supreme Court Bell v. MorrisonSearch
-
U.S. 1 Pet. 351 351 (1828) Bell v. MorrisonSearch
-
which is consistent with its true object and import is that expressed by this Court in the case of Wetzell v. BussardSearch
-
to sober and rational limits. The American courts have evinced a like disposition. In the recent case of Bangs v. HallSearch
-
has been asserted in the supreme court of New York. The subject was much considered in the case of Sands v. GelstonSearch
-
In the case of Clementson v. WilliamsSearch
-
In the case of Wetzell v. BussardSearch
-
in the habit of respecting and following the judgments of the local tribunals. The first and leading case is Bell v. RowlandsSearch
-
those facts. This case has never been departed from in Kentucky, and has been frequently recognized. In Harrison v. HandleySearch
-
by the court of appeals. Mr. Chief Justice, in delivering the opinion of the court, adverted to the case of Bell v. Rowland'sSearch
-
This is certainly a very strong case to illustrate the rule, adopted in Kentucky. In Gray v. LawridgeSearch
-
him not exceeding the amount of the interest then due, was taken out of the statute, and no further. In Ormsby v. LetcherSearch
-
The language of this case, as well as that in Harrison v. HandleySearch
-
whether the law will imply such a promise from language so doubtful and general. The language of the court in Harrison v. HanleySearch
-
to maintain the present action, it must be binding upon all. In the case of Bland v. HasleringSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
report, whether the opinion of the court or of any of the judges proceeded solely upon such a ground. In Whitcomb v. WhitingSearch
-
they should have utterly denied the debt at the time when such acknowledgment was made. The doctrine of Whitcomb v. WhitingSearch
-
has been followed in England in subsequent cases, and was applied to in a strong manner in Jackson v. FairbankSearch
-
the statute as an acknowledgment of a subsisting debt. It has not, however, been received without hesitation. In Clark v. BradshawSearch
-
Kenyon, at Nisi Prius, expressed some doubts upon it, and the cause went off on another ground. And in Brandram v. WhartonSearch
-
by an acknowledgment other Page 26 U. S. 369 than that of the party himself began with the case of Whitcomb v. WhitingSearch
-
are by an express statute of Kentucky declared not to be of authority in their courts, and consequently Whitcomb v. WhitingSearch
-
bind the other so as to prevent him from availing himself of the statute. This is evident from the cases of Whitcomb v. WhitingSearch
-
and Jackson v. FairbankSearch
-
The correctness of the decision, cannot, upon the general view taken by the court, be questioned. In Roosevelt v. MarksSearch
-
Johns.Ch. 266. 291, Mr. Chancellor Kent admitted the authority of Whitcomb v. WhitingSearch
-
but denied that of Jackson v. FairbankSearch
-
to us solid and satisfactory. Upon some other cases in New York we shall have occasion hereafter to comment. In Hunt v. BridghamSearch
-
did not proceed to any reasoning to establish the principle, considering it as the result of the authorities. Shelton v. CocksSearch
-
is to the same effect, and contains a mere annunciation of the rule, without any discussion of its principle. Simpson v. MorrisonSearch
-
which may depend upon the rules of pleading. This very point came before the twelve judges, in the case of Hyling v. HastingsSearch
-
So, in Boydell v. DrummondSearch
-
the English as well as the American authorities conforms to this view of the operation of an acknowledgment. In Jones v. MooreSearch
-
of partners after the dissolution of the partnership, and bears directly on the point under consideration. In Hackley v. PatrickSearch
-
authorized to settle all the accounts of the firm. This doctrine was again recognized by the same court in Malden v. SherburneSearch
-
Johns. 409, 424, although it was admitted that in Wood v. BraddickSearch
-
a general exposition of the law according to its terms is conclusive on this point. It is the case of Walker & Evans v. DuberrySearch
-
arises from the citations of 3 Johnson and 3 Mumford. The former has been already adverted to, and the latter, Shelton v. CockeSearch
-
it leads to the most serious doubts whether the state courts of Kentucky would ever adopt the doctrine of Whitcomb v. WhitingSearch
-
Brown v. CampbellSearch
-
Tries v. BoiseletSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Bell v. MorrisonSearch
-
of Wetzell v. BussardSearch
-
of Bangs v. HallSearch
-
of Sands v. GelstonSearch
-
of Clementson v. WilliamsSearch
-
Bell v. RowlandsSearch
-
In Harrison v. HandleySearch
-
of Bell v. Rowland'sSearch
-
Kentucky. In Gray v. LawridgeSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial