Citation network
Wilcox Vs. Executors of Plummer
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 01, 1830
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
-
Wilcox v. ExecutorsSearch
-
of Plummer - 29 U.S. 172 (1830) U.S. Supreme Court Wilcox v. ExecutorsSearch
-
of Plummer, 29 U.S. 4 Pet. 172 172 (1830) Wilcox v. ExecutorsSearch
-
the testator of the defendants, who was a collecting Page 29 U. S. 173 attorney accustomed to collect for John V. WilcoxSearch
-
to the plaintiffs. On 7 February, 1820, the testator, Kemp Plummer, instituted a suit in the name of John V. WilcoxSearch
-
of John v. WilcoxSearch
-
of John v. WilcoxSearch
-
of John v. WilcoxSearch
-
Company, against Hawkins, the endorser of the note. This action, thus instituted and docketed as a suit by John V. WilcoxSearch
-
supreme court at June term 1824. Thereupon the present suit was instituted, viz., on 27 January, 1825, by John V. WilcoxSearch
-
of John v. WilcoxSearch
-
It is not a case of consequential damages, in the technical acceptation of those terms, such as the case of Gillon v. BoddingtonSearch
-
this doctrine. As long ago as the 20th Eliz. 1 Croke 53, this was one of the points ruled in the Sheriffs of Norwich v. BradshawSearch
-
The principle has often been applied to the very plea here set up, and in some very modern cases. That of Battley v. FaulknerSearch
-
held that the plaintiff should have instituted his action, and he was barred for not doing so. In the case of Short v. McCarthySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
established that it was unknown to the plaintiff until the time had run out. And the same point is ruled in Granger v. GeorgeSearch
-
that if suppressed by fraud, it ought to be replied to the plea if the party could avail himself of it. In Howell v. YoungSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Wilcox v. ExecutorsSearch
-
John v. WilcoxSearch
-
of John v. WilcoxSearch
-
of Gillon v. BoddingtonSearch
-
the Sheriffs of Norwich v. BradshawSearch
-
That of Battley v. FaulknerSearch
-
of Short v. McCarthySearch
-
Granger v. GeorgeSearch
-
In Howell v. YoungSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial