Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Jenkins Vs. Pye

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 01, 1838

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

33 entries 3 linked 30 unlinked
Show
  1. Hughes Vs. Edwards US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1824
  2. Willison Vs. Watkins US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1830
  3. Piatt Vs. Vattier US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1835
  4. U.S. 241 (1838) U.S. Supreme Court Jenkins v. Pye
    Search
  5. U.S. 12 Pet. 241 241 (1838) Jenkins v. Pye
    Search
  6. during the seventeenth century met with some opposition, especially in the reigns of Car. II and Jac. II, but in Nott v. Hill
    Search
  7. P.W. 310, Newland on Contracts 436, and Bemey v. Pitt
    Search
  8. again reheard before Lord Ch. Jeffries, 2 Vern. 27, and reversed, and that of Lord Nottingham confirmed. So in Bemey v. Pitt
    Search
  9. in the grantor to redeem on the usual terms of paying the money advanced, with interest. In the case of Twisleton v. Griffith
    Search
  10. P.W. 313. In Peacock v. Evans
    Search
  11. and he cites with approbation the expressions of Lord Ch. Eldon in Coles v. Trecotheck
    Search
  12. and the conveyance was treated as a mortgage, vide Davis v. Duke
    Search
  13. set of children -- it is well settled the deed should be set aside. To prove it, I need only cite the case of Young v. Peachy
    Search
  14. And Lord Hardwicke said in Young v. Peachy
    Search
  15. when those in whose knowledge the facts rested which might have explained the transaction are dead, as in Brown v. Carter
    Search
  16. The same doctrine was held by Lord Eskine in Morse v. Royal
    Search
  17. and the death of witnesses. The British case, however, which has most labored this question is that of Chalmers v. Bradley
    Search
  18. to disturb contracts or possessions is established on a very firm footing as the doctrine of this Court, in Ricard v. Williams
    Search
  19. Miller v. McIntyre
    Search
  20. U.S. Supreme Court Jenkins v. Pye
    Search
  21. Nott v. Hill
    Search
  22. and Bemey v. Pitt
    Search
  23. Bemey v. Pitt
    Search
  24. of Twisleton v. Griffith
    Search
  25. In Peacock v. Evans
    Search
  26. Coles v. Trecotheck
    Search
  27. Davis v. Duke
    Search
  28. of Young v. Peachy
    Search
  29. Young v. Peachy
    Search
  30. Brown v. Carter
    Search
  31. Morse v. Royal
    Search
  32. of Chalmers v. Bradley
    Search
  33. Ricard v. Williams
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial