Citation network
Cincinnati Vs. Lessee of White
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 01, 1832
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
-
Cincinnati v. LesseeSearch
-
of White - 31 U.S. 431 (1832) U.S. Supreme Court Cincinnati v. LesseeSearch
-
of White, 31 U.S. 6 Pet. 431 431 (1832) Cincinnati v. LesseeSearch
-
of land for public highways was applied to a public spring of water for public use in the case of McConnell v. TrusteesSearch
-
in public use, although there may never arise any grantee capable of taking the fee. The recent case of Beatty v. KurtsSearch
-
adopting the principle that had been laid down in the case of Town of Pawlet v. ClarkSearch
-
principles, Page 31 U. S. 437 as is evident from what fell from the Court in the case of Town of Pawlet v. ClarkSearch
-
but it takes effect by way of grant or dedication to public uses. And in support of the principle, the case of Lade v. ShepherdSearch
-
was so applied by this Court to the reservation of a public spring of water for public use in the case of McConnell v. TrusteesSearch
-
would be destructive of public convenience and private right. Page 31 U. S. 439 The case of Jarvis v. DeanSearch
-
of its being used for the public purposes intended by the appropriation. This was the doctrine in the case of Jarvis v. DeanSearch
-
shown, and this should be satisfactorily established by the party claiming against the dedication. In the case of Rex v. LloydSearch
-
by ejectment. Adams' Eject. 32. Starkie, part 4, 506-507. This is the rule laid down by Lord Mansfield in Atkins v. HordeSearch
-
enter, and every plaintiff in ejectment must show a right of possession as well as of property. And in the case of Doe v. StapleSearch
-
right to the possession of the premises, or he cannot recover in an action of ejectment. And in the case of Doe v. JacksonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
have been referred to leave it at least questionable whether the doctrine of Lord Mansfield in the case of Goodtitle v. AlkerSearch
-
and sustained by reasons much more satisfactory than those upon which the case in Burrow is made to rest. Stiles v. CurtisSearch
-
Peck v. SmithSearch
-
subject to the easement, it is utterly impracticable. It is well said by Mr. Justice Smith in the case of Stiles v. CurtisSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Cincinnati v. LesseeSearch
-
of McConnell v. TrusteesSearch
-
of Beatty v. KurtsSearch
-
of Town of Pawlet v. ClarkSearch
-
of Lade v. ShepherdSearch
-
of Jarvis v. DeanSearch
-
of Rex v. LloydSearch
-
Atkins v. HordeSearch
-
of Doe v. StapleSearch
-
of Doe v. JacksonSearch
-
of Goodtitle v. AlkerSearch
-
Stiles v. CurtisSearch
-
of Stiles v. CurtisSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial