Citation network
Russell Vs. Southard
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 01, 1851
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. 139 (1851) U.S. Supreme Court Russell v. SouthardSearch
-
U.S. 12 How. 139 139 (1851) Russell v. SouthardSearch
-
practiced under the shelter of any written papers, however precise and complete they may appear to be. In Conway v. AlexanderSearch
-
and in Morris v. NixonSearch
-
These views are supported by many authorities. Maxwell v. MontacuteSearch
-
Dixon v. ParkerSearch
-
Prince v. BeardenSearch
-
Oldham v. HalleySearch
-
Whittick v. KaneSearch
-
Taylor v. LutherSearch
-
Flagg v. MannSearch
-
Overton v. BigelowSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Brainerd v. BrainerdSearch
-
Wright v. BatesSearch
-
McIntyre v. HumphriesSearch
-
of general equity jurisprudence, this Court must be governed by its own views of those principles. Robinson v. PageSearch
-
United States v. HowlandSearch
-
we do not perceive that the rule held in Kentucky differs from that above laid down. That rule, as stated in Thomas v. McCormackSearch
-
has stated this doctrine with more distinctness, than the Court of Appeals of the State of Kentucky. In Edrington v. HarperSearch
-
what is alleged to have been the price bore no proportion to the value of the thing said to have been sold. Conway v. AlexanderSearch
-
Morris v. NixonSearch
-
Vernon v. BethellSearch
-
Edrington v. HarperSearch
-
that in doubtful cases, the court leans to the conclusion that the reality was a mortgage, and not a sale. Conway v. AlexanderSearch
-
Page 53 U. S. 152 Flagg v. MannSearch
-
Secrest v. TurnerSearch
-
Crane v. BonnellSearch
-
Robertson v. CampbellSearch
-
Poindexter v. McCannonSearch
-
says the Lord Chancellor, in Vernon v. BethellSearch
-
but it is settled that this circumstance does not make the conveyance less effectual as a mortgage. Floyer v. LavingtonSearch
-
Lawley v. HooperSearch
-
Scott v. FieldsSearch
-
Ancaster v. MayerSearch
-
of the grantor to repay the money, be a conclusive test to determine whether the conveyance was a mortgage. In Brown v. DeweySearch
-
by words showing that the grantor had an option to pay or not, might constitute the grantee a creditor. Ancaster v. MayerSearch
-
though it contains no promise to pay it. In such a case it is settled that an action of assumpsit will lie. Tilson v. WarwickSearch
-
Yates v. AstonSearch
-
Burnett v. LynchSearch
-
Elder v. RouseSearch
-
A mortgagee in possession may take a release of the equity of redemption. Hicks v. CookSearch
-
the borrower. Strong language is used in some of the cases on this subject. It was declared by Lord Redesdale in Webb v. RorkeSearch
-
And Chancellor Kent, in Holdridge v. GillespieSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Russell v. SouthardSearch
-
In Conway v. AlexanderSearch
-
Maxwell v. MontacuteSearch
-
Robinson v. PageSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial