Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Lovejoy Vs. Murray

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 01, 1865

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

63 entries 63 unlinked
Show
  1. U.S. 1 (1865) U.S. Supreme Court Lovejoy v. Murray
    Search
  2. U.S. 3 Wall. 1 1 (1865) Lovejoy v. Murray
    Search
  3. Parke, Baron, in the case of King v. Hoare
    Search
  4. to any other action for the same cause. In the latest English case upon the principal question, namely Buckland v. Johnson
    Search
  5. the chief justice takes occasion to correct what he supposes to be an erroneous statement of Tindal, C.J., in Cooper v. Shepherd
    Search
  6. recovered is essential to vest the property in defendant, and this only a few years before the case of Johnson v. Buckland
    Search
  7. was decided. That case was decided in 1854, and mainly on the authority of Brown v. Wootton
    Search
  8. to procure satisfaction for these injuries, we do not see the sequence in the reasoning of the learned judge. Brown v. Wootton
    Search
  9. In Claxton v. Swift
    Search
  10. it was never pretended, until the case of Brown v. Wootton
    Search
  11. In Cocke v. Jenner
    Search
  12. reported by Hobart, and which was in Trinity Term, 12 James I (only nine years after Brown v. Wootton
    Search
  13. that only satisfaction or its equivalent would bar proceedings against all who were liable. And the case of Corbett v. Barnes
    Search
  14. for the same trespass. Page 70 U. S. 13 These cases show that after as well as before the case of Brown v. Wootton
    Search
  15. than what it decides, and we know of no case in which it was followed in England as implicit authority until Buckland v. Johnson
    Search
  16. is perceived why joint trespassers should be placed in a better condition. As remarked by Lord Ellenborough in Drake v. Mitchell
    Search
  17. Nor is the principle admitted in regard to conversions of Page 70 U. S. 14 personal property. Prior to Brown v. Wootton
    Search
  18. cases which hold that the right of property is transferred by the judgment. The first of these two cases is Wilkes v. Jackson
    Search
  19. the same court in a former case, which does not appear to sustain it. The other is the Rhode Island case of Hunt v. Bates
    Search
  20. that the recovery of a judgment for the value of the goods converted transfers the title to the defendant. Rogers v. Moore
    Search
  21. Floyd v. Brown
    Search
  22. On the other hand, in the case of Livingston v. Bishop
    Search
  23. in the supreme court of New York in 1806, Kent, C.J., overrules Brown v. Wootton
    Search
  24. and holds that judgment alone is not a bar. Page 70 U. S. 15 In Sheldon v. Kibbe
    Search
  25. second action against a co-trespasser. Nothing short of satisfaction or release can have that effect. In Sanderson v. Caldwell
    Search
  26. nor anything short of satisfaction is a bar to a second suit brought against another joint trespasser. Osterhout v. Roberts
    Search
  27. sixty days for the same trespass. Yet the plea was held bad. The trespass was for taking a watch. In Elliott v. Forter
    Search
  28. to the property does not pass by judgment in trespass or trover. This case is affirmed by the same court in Sharp v. Gray
    Search
  29. Blann v. Cochern
    Search
  30. of the court. But the plea was held bad because it was not averred that it was accepted by the plaintiff. In Knott v. Cunningham
    Search
  31. against one tortfeasor was no bar to a suit against another for the same tort without satisfaction. In Page v. Freeman
    Search
  32. the Supreme Court of Missouri held the same doctrine. Page 70 U. S. 16 In Floyd v. Browne
    Search
  33. Hyde v. Noble
    Search
  34. Hepburn v. Sewell
    Search
  35. Ferris v. Arden
    Search
  36. Kennedy v. Cope
    Search
  37. White v. Philbrick
    Search
  38. Roberts v. Prince
    Search
  39. Calkens v. Allerton
    Search
  40. Glass v. Nichols
    Search
  41. Castle v. Noyes
    Search
  42. Warfield v. Davis
    Search
  43. U.S. Supreme Court Lovejoy v. Murray
    Search
  44. of King v. Hoare
    Search
  45. Buckland v. Johnson
    Search
  46. Cooper v. Shepherd
    Search
  47. of Johnson v. Buckland
    Search
  48. of Brown v. Wootton
    Search
  49. Brown v. Wootton
    Search
  50. of Corbett v. Barnes
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial