Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Lessee of Pollard's Heirs Vs. Kibbe

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 01, 1840

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

71 entries 6 linked 65 unlinked
Show
  1. American Insurance Company Vs. Canter US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1828
  2. United States Vs. Percheman US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1832
    Relied / Followed
  3. Foster and Elam Vs. Neilson US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1829
  4. Poole Vs. Fleeger US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1837
    Relied / Followed
  5. Harcourt Vs. Gaillard US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1827
  6. Keene Vs. Mcdonough US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1834
  7. U.S. 353 (1840) U.S. Supreme Court Lessee of Pollard's Heirs v. Kibbe
    Search
  8. U.S. 14 Pet. 353 353 (1840) Lessee of Pollard's Heirs v. Kibbe
    Search
  9. J. v. Morales
    Search
  10. claim, being founded upon such act, distinguishes it from the doctrine of this Court in the cases of Foster and Elam v. Neilson
    Search
  11. Pet. 253, and Garcia v. Lee
    Search
  12. been recognized by this Court as existing claims, and not treated as being absolutely void. In the case of Delacroix v. Chamberlain
    Search
  13. This complaint was made soon after the decision of the case of Foster and Elam v. Neilson
    Search
  14. U. S. 12 Wheat. 600, and in the first sentence of their opinion in Garcia v. Lee
    Search
  15. bearing of which on the eighth article will be seen to have a most conclusive effect when the case of Foster and Elam v. Neilson
    Search
  16. the territory between the Perdido and the Mississippi. 3. That every principle of the case of Foster and Elam v. Neilson
    Search
  17. case, which stand affirmed in all subsequent cases, give full validity to such grants. 5. That the case of Poole v. Fleeger
    Search
  18. with a uniform course of adjudication before and after, may be deemed worthy of reconsideration. 1. In Soulard v. United
    Search
  19. U. S. 4 Pet. 512. In alluding to this stipulation, the Court said in Delassus v. United
    Search
  20. U. S. 9 Pet. 236. In United States v. Smith
    Search
  21. and that the United States has put itself in the place of Spain. 35 U. S. 10 Pet. 335. In New Orleans v. United
    Search
  22. in relation to the territory east of the Perdido, including East Florida. The first was American Insurance Company v. Canter
    Search
  23. at the next term, and this treaty declared not to be the law of the land. Next came the case of Foster and Elam v. Neilson
    Search
  24. of the eighth article would apply by the opinion of the Court. The second point was decided in United States v. Arredondo
    Search
  25. Id., 31 U. S. 741 -742. The same principles were adopted in United States v. Percheman
    Search
  26. construction of its words, and the Court also declares that this construction would have been given in Foster v. Elam
    Search
  27. they overruled the construction given in Foster and Elam v. Neilson
    Search
  28. U. S. 12 Pet. 747. In United States v. Kingsley
    Search
  29. and effect of the cession and the construction of the treaty which were expressed by the Court in Foster and Elam v. Neilson
    Search
  30. and is decisive of the two first points. Their opinion in the case of United States v. Clarke
    Search
  31. U. S. 8 Pet. 464. The same principle is recognized and declared in United States v. Mitchell
    Search
  32. Pet. 735, and Strother v. Lucas
    Search
  33. while those governments occupied the territory in dispute between them (Georgia and the United States). Harcourt v. Gaillard
    Search
  34. the Court decided this case on the same principles as were adopted in Poole v. Fleeger
    Search
  35. Henderson v. Poindexter
    Search
  36. U. S. 12 Wheat. 534-535, 25 U. S. 544 . This state of facts in Harcourt v. Gaillard
    Search
  37. and Henderson v. Poindexter
    Search
  38. of the treaty of 1819 and the laws of nations applicable thereto, the principles laid down by the Court in Harcourt v. Gaillord
    Search
  39. United States and proclaimed as binding on them by its constitutional effect. At the same term in which Harcourt v. Gaillard
    Search
  40. were decided, the case of Delacroix v. Chamberlain
    Search
  41. that the plaintiff would have recovered, as his case came within every principle of the preceding cases of Harcourt v. Gaillard
    Search
  42. If these opinions of this Court require additional support to entitle them to respect, it will be found in Keene v. McDonough
    Search
  43. not valid against the party whose original right is acknowledged. S.P. 36 U. S. 11 Pet. 209-210. Delacroix v. Chamberlain
    Search
  44. any of its members which even questions any one principle of the law of nations as laid down in the cases of Harcourt v. Gaillard
    Search
  45. Insurance Company v. Canter
    Search
  46. United States v. Soulard
    Search
  47. Arredondo, Percheman, Delassus, Mitchell, Strother v. Lucas
    Search
  48. and Rhode Island v. Massachusetts
    Search
  49. U. S. 12 Pet. 748-749. If the reference to Poole v. Fleeger
    Search
  50. nations to which the above named cases refer, it must have arisen from relying in two passages of the opinion in Poole v. Fleeger
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial