Citation network
Shields Vs. Barrow
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 01, 1854
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. 130 (1854) U.S. Supreme Court Shields v. BarrowSearch
-
U.S. 17 How. 130 130 (1854) Shields v. BarrowSearch
-
in the absence of an indispensable party whose rights must necessarily be affected by such decree. In Russell v. Clarke'sSearch
-
rights of those absent, otherwise the latter are indispensable parties. Now it will be perceived that in Russell v. Clarke'sSearch
-
doubt is solved in favor of the jurisdiction in subsequent cases, but without infringing upon what was held in Russell v. Clarke'sSearch
-
that relief necessarily involves the rights of absent persons. As to formal or unnecessary parties, See Wormley v. WormleySearch
-
a substantial interest, but not so connected with the controversy that their joinder is indispensable, See Cameron v. M'RobertsSearch
-
Osborn v. BankSearch
-
inseparable from the interests of those before the court, and who are therefore indispensable parties, See Cameron v. McRobertsSearch
-
Wheat. 197. In Cameron v. M'RobertsSearch
-
And the grounds of this distinction are explained in Mallow v. HindeSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
understand it to be no more than a legislative affirmance of the rule previously established by the cases of Cameron v. M'RobertsSearch
-
and Harding v. HandySearch
-
The act says it shall be lawful for the court to entertain jurisdiction, but as is observed by this Court in Mallow v. HindeSearch
-
of the effect of this act of Congress and of the previous decisions of the Court on the subject of that rule. Hagan v. WalkerSearch
-
the suit without Page 58 U. S. 142 affecting those rights. To use the language of this Court in Elmendorf v. TaylorSearch
-
was so entire and indivisible, that without their presence no decree on the subject could be made. In Morgan's Heirs v. MorganSearch
-
Edwards v. EdwardsSearch
-
by way of amendment. We apprehend that the true rule on this subject is laid down by the vice-chancellor in Verplanck v. MercantileSearch
-
should be shown in acting within it, taking care always to protect the rights of the opposite party. See Mavor v. DrySearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Shields v. BarrowSearch
-
In Russell v. Clarke'sSearch
-
Russell v. Clarke'sSearch
-
See Wormley v. WormleySearch
-
See Cameron v. M'RobertsSearch
-
See Cameron v. McRobertsSearch
-
In Cameron v. M'RobertsSearch
-
of Cameron v. M'RobertsSearch
-
Hagan v. WalkerSearch
-
Elmendorf v. TaylorSearch
-
In Morgan's Heirs v. MorganSearch
-
Verplanck v. MercantileSearch
-
See Mavor v. DrySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial