Citation network
Ellicott Vs. Pearl
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 01, 1836
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. 412 (1836) U.S. Supreme Court Ellicott v. PearlSearch
-
U.S. 10 Pet. 412 412 (1836) Ellicott v. PearlSearch
-
who stand in privity of estate or interest with them. So it was laid down by Lord Kenyon, in his able opinion in King v. EnswellSearch
-
the rule itself. But these exceptions stand upon peculiar grounds, and as was remarked by Lord Ellenborough in Weeks v. SparkeSearch
-
lis nota or other interest to affect the credit of their statement. So the law was expounded by Lord Kenyon in King v. EnswellSearch
-
Term 723, and by Lord Eldon in Vowles v. YoungSearch
-
Ves. 143, and in Whitlocke v. BakerSearch
-
admitted. They are all cases of a general right, affecting a number of persons having a common interest. In Morehead v. WoodSearch
-
Lord Ellenborough, in Weeks v. SparkeSearch
-
as to the boundaries between private estates is not admissible evidence. That was so held by Baron Graham, in Clothier v. ChapmanSearch
-
rules of evidence that security must essentially depend. This will be clearly seen by what fell from the court in King v. EnswellSearch
-
The doctrine of the other judges on that occasion went to the same extent. In Doe v. PageSearch
-
the general principles of evidence. In this Court, a like restricted doctrine has been maintained. In Mima Queen v. HepburnSearch
-
in the present case, as it applies directly to it and is established by clear and decisive authority. In Antram v. WoodSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
to the coals in them, and it was held inadmissible. The same doctrine was recognized by Lord Ellenborough in Weeks v. SparkeSearch
-
for it turns upon a single fact, that of locality, and that ought to be proved by the ordinary course of evidence. Rex v. ErithSearch
-
East 539. In Mima Queen v. HepburnSearch
-
the ancestor of a person suing for freedom was free was held inadmissible. The same point was again decided in Davis v. WoodSearch
-
such imputation, proof of the antecedent declaration of the party may be admitted. It is true that in Lutterel v. ReynellSearch
-
or enclosure of the land. If authority were necessary for so plain a proposition, it will be found in the case of Moss v. ScottSearch
-
his clear intention to assert such possession. This doctrine is well settled. It was affirmed by this Court in Barr v. GratzSearch
-
Page 35 U. S. 444 and it has been fully recognized and acted upon by the state courts of Kentucky. In Fox v. HintonSearch
-
with an intention to take possession, he shall be construed to be in possession to the extent of his claim. In Thomas v. HarrowSearch
-
did not appear to cover the land and which had not been perfected by survey or patent. The cases of Smith's Heirs v. LockridgeSearch
-
Cates v. LoftusSearch
-
Moss v. CurrieSearch
-
Boyce v. BlakeSearch
-
Smith's Heirs v. Frost'sSearch
-
and Harrison v. McDanielSearch
-
his possession must either be deemed a continuation of that of Pearl or bounded by his actual occupancy. In Jones v. ChilesSearch
-
not stating that the possession was adversary and uninterrupted during the whole thirty years, and the case of Forman v. AmblerSearch
-
See Morehead v. WoodSearch
-
Doe v. ThomasSearch
-
Freeman v. PhillipsSearch
-
Nichols v. ParkerSearch
-
Paxton v. DareSearch
-
Phillips on Ev. ch. 7, sec. 7, 189, 190, third ed. But see Barnes v. MawsonSearch
-
See Caufnian v. PresbyterianSearch
-
Pet.C. 496, 511-512. See also The King v. EnswellSearch
-
See Blarkett v. LowesSearch
-
Morewood v. WoodSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Ellicott v. PearlSearch
-
King v. EnswellSearch
-
Weeks v. SparkeSearch
-
Vowles v. YoungSearch
-
Whitlocke v. BakerSearch
-
In Morehead v. WoodSearch
-
Clothier v. ChapmanSearch
-
In Doe v. PageSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial