Citation network
Porterfield Vs. Clark
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 01, 1844
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. 76 (1844) U.S. Supreme Court Porterfield v. ClarkSearch
-
U.S. 76 (1844) Porterfield v. ClarkSearch
-
on the question and a second argument been ordered. The defendant's title came before this Court in Clark v. SmithSearch
-
land of the Chickasaws were not thus reserved. So it had been decided by the Court of Appeals of Virginia in Marshal v. GeorgeSearch
-
R. Clark in 1791, Hughes 40, and which was affirmed in Rollins v. ClarkSearch
-
issued by that state after the Chickasaw title was extinguished for lands west of Tennessee River, the case of Clark v. SmithSearch
-
We Page 43 U. S. 108 use the language of the Court of Appeals of Kentucky, in the case of Rollins v. ClarkSearch
-
now, a matter of fact, as already stated, for the court to ascertain. This fact is not concluded by the case of Clark v. SmithSearch
-
founded mainly on the case of Thomas Marshall, George Mater, and others, superintendents of the Virginia state line, v. GeorgeSearch
-
For evidence of this we refer to the many Page 43 U. S. 109 cases reported by Hughes and to the case of Peck v. EddingtonSearch
-
Bugg v. NorrisSearch
-
Yerg. 326, and Peeler and Campbell v. NorrisSearch
-
it is said in Bugg v. NorrisSearch
-
Outram v. MorewoodSearch
-
were it otherwise, litigation would be endless. Such is the established rule. Trevinan v. LawrenceSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
that the lands west of the Tennessee River were part of the Cherokee country, in 1779. In the case of Clark v. SmithSearch
-
the latitude of 36.30 north taken on the Mississippi River. The history of it will be seen in the case of Fleeger v. PoolSearch
-
been held. This Court pronounced it no violation of the compact between Virginia and Kentucky in the case of Hawkins v. BarneySearch
-
the bar may be founded, although it be the younger, and void when contrasted with the plaintiff's elder patent. Skyles v. KingSearch
-
each state has the right to construe its own statutes, and especially those barring titles. In the case of Green v. NealSearch
-
all cases where the decisions of the state court had become a rule of property. This rule was adopted in Harpending v. DutchSearch
-
as if it had been made on a Treasury warrant, each being governed by the provisions of the act of 1779. McIlhenney v. BiggerstaffSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Porterfield v. ClarkSearch
-
Clark v. SmithSearch
-
Marshal v. GeorgeSearch
-
Rollins v. ClarkSearch
-
of Clark v. SmithSearch
-
of Rollins v. ClarkSearch
-
of Peck v. EddingtonSearch
-
and Peeler and Campbell v. NorrisSearch
-
Trevinan v. LawrenceSearch
-
of Fleeger v. PoolSearch
-
of Hawkins v. BarneySearch
-
Skyles v. KingSearch
-
of Green v. NealSearch
-
Harpending v. DutchSearch
-
McIlhenney v. BiggerstaffSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial