Citation network
Watkins Vs. Holman
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 01, 1842
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. 25 (1842) U.S. Supreme Court Watkins v. HolmanSearch
-
U.S. 16 Pet. 25 25 (1842) Watkins v. HolmanSearch
-
actual possession, and the rights of a riparian proprietor do not attach to him. The case of Mayor of New Orleans v. UnitedSearch
-
in error claims under Holman, he cannot question his title, and in support of this position the cases of Jackson v. BushSearch
-
Johns. 223, and Jackson v. HinmanSearch
-
The case of Brant v. LivermoreSearch
-
cited from the same volume, arose between landlord and tenant. And the decision relied on in Schauber v. JacksonSearch
-
the case where a conveyance has been executed. In the language of this Court in the case of Blight's Lessee v. RochesterSearch
-
that a purchaser who has obtained a conveyance holds adversely to the vendor, and may controvert his title. Voorhies v. White'sSearch
-
Winlock v. HardySearch
-
unless his enclosures are extended so as to include the alluvial formations. In the case of Ewing's Lessee v. BurnetSearch
-
the common law on this subject have been taken substantially from the civil law. In the case of Mayor of New Orleans v. UnitedSearch
-
in the preamble of a public act of Parliament of a public fact is evidence to prove the existence of that fact. Rex v. SuttonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
a resolution stating the existence of a popish plot would not be evidence of the fact in a criminal case. Jones v. RandallSearch
-
cestui que trust. This doctrine seems to have been sanctioned to some extent in New York in the cases of Foote v. ColvinSearch
-
Jackson v. MatsdorfSearch
-
Seelye v. MorseSearch
-
In the case of Jackson v. LeggettSearch
-
This was the doctrine of Lord Mansfield in the case of Armstrong v. PeirseSearch
-
Burr. 1899. In Bristow v. PeggeSearch
-
Master of the Rolls for some years. This equitable doctrine in a court of law was overruled in the case of Hodsden v. StapleSearch
-
The other judges, except Buller, concurred with the Chief Justice. In Shewen v. WrootSearch
-
passed no laws on the subject. A manuscript decision of a circuit court in Alabama, in the case of Campbell and Havre v. ScalesSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Watkins v. HolmanSearch
-
of Mayor of New Orleans v. UnitedSearch
-
of Jackson v. BushSearch
-
and Jackson v. HinmanSearch
-
of Brant v. LivermoreSearch
-
Schauber v. JacksonSearch
-
of Blight's Lessee v. RochesterSearch
-
Voorhies v. White'sSearch
-
of Ewing's Lessee v. BurnetSearch
-
Rex v. SuttonSearch
-
Jones v. RandallSearch
-
of Foote v. ColvinSearch
-
of Jackson v. LeggettSearch
-
of Armstrong v. PeirseSearch
-
In Bristow v. PeggeSearch
-
of Hodsden v. StapleSearch
-
the Chief Justice. In Shewen v. WrootSearch
-
of Campbell and Havre v. ScalesSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial