Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Ennis Vs. Smith

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 01, 1852

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

55 entries 2 linked 53 unlinked
Show
  1. Talbot Vs. Seeman US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1801
  2. Owings Vs. Hull US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1835
  3. U.S. 400 (1852) U.S. Supreme Court Ennis v. Smith
    Search
  4. U.S. 14 How. 400 400 (1852) Ennis v. Smith
    Search
  5. of others, especially of codes and accepted histories of the law of a country. See also the cases of Church v. Hubbart
    Search
  6. Cranch 181, and Talbot v. Seeman
    Search
  7. connection with words of themselves of larger meaning, or of fixed legal import, as there were in the case of Bosley v. Bosley
    Search
  8. Rawson v. Haigh
    Search
  9. Taylor, 376. In the United States, the case of Gorham v. Canton
    Search
  10. Greenleaf 266, is to the same effect, and in Massachusetts, in the cases of Thorndike v. Boston
    Search
  11. Metcalf, and Kiburn v. Bennett
    Search
  12. retained, unless the change is proved, and the burden of proving it is upon him who alleges the changes. Somerville v. Somerville
    Search
  13. Bruce v. Bruce
    Search
  14. to be a part of the jus gentium. Lord Thurlow speaks of it as such in the House of Lords in the case of Bruce v. Bruce
    Search
  15. but it was brought into harmony with the law of the rest of Europe by the decision of the House of Lords in Bruce v. Bruce
    Search
  16. Omman v. Bingham
    Search
  17. Colville & Landor v. Brown
    Search
  18. W. & S. 28. The earliest case reported in the English books is that of Pipon v. Pipon
    Search
  19. according to our laws, and not those of his own country. He reaffirmed the same in a few years afterwards in Thorne v. Watkins
    Search
  20. Ves. 35. Lord Kenyon did the same, when he was Master of the Rolls in 1787, in Killpatrick v. Killpatrick
    Search
  21. will be found cited in Robertson on Personal Succession 116. In 1790, the House of Lords acted upon the rule in Bruce v. Bruce
    Search
  22. and two years afterwards, in Hogg v. Lashley
    Search
  23. Morris v. Harmer
    Search
  24. Lord Tenterden, in Lacon v. Heggins
    Search
  25. copy and sworn to be such by the Consul, it would have been received in evidence, as the Irish statutes were in Jones v. Maffet
    Search
  26. they were sworn to by an Irish barrister, and that he received them from the King's printer in Ireland. In Church v. Hubbart
    Search
  27. to all nations which may, according to the manner of its promulgation, be read as law without other proof. Talbot v. Seeman
    Search
  28. text and the interpretation of it must be called. And so it was ruled afterwards by Erle, Justice, in 1846, in Cocks v. Purdy
    Search
  29. C. & K. 269, in which fragments of a code were offered as evidence. But his Lordship's opinion and the case of Clark v. Purdy
    Search
  30. him. In the other case, fragments of laws were offered. This point had been settled by Lord Stowell in Dalrymple v. Dalrymple
    Search
  31. judges in the Sussex Peerage Case, gave the rule, with its qualifications, in the case of the Earl of Nelson v. Lord
    Search
  32. officially published by the government which made the law. Such is the foundation of Lord Tenterden's ruling in Lacen v. Higgens
    Search
  33. yet they are only received when the genuineness of the publication is apparent. This Court has so ruled in Hind v. Vattier
    Search
  34. Pet. 398, and in Owings v. Hull
    Search
  35. U.S. Supreme Court Ennis v. Smith
    Search
  36. of Church v. Hubbart
    Search
  37. and Talbot v. Seeman
    Search
  38. of Bosley v. Bosley
    Search
  39. of Gorham v. Canton
    Search
  40. of Thorndike v. Boston
    Search
  41. Somerville v. Somerville
    Search
  42. of Bruce v. Bruce
    Search
  43. of Pipon v. Pipon
    Search
  44. Thorne v. Watkins
    Search
  45. Killpatrick v. Killpatrick
    Search
  46. Hogg v. Lashley
    Search
  47. Lacon v. Heggins
    Search
  48. Jones v. Maffet
    Search
  49. Ireland. In Church v. Hubbart
    Search
  50. Cocks v. Purdy
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial