Citation network
Dexter Vs. Hall
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 01, 1872
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. 9 (1872) U.S. Supreme Court Dexter v. HallSearch
-
U.S. 15 Wall. 9 9 (1872) Dexter v. HallSearch
-
heirs of a lunatic his deed is invalid, and this, we think, has been steadily maintained in England. In Thompson v. LeachSearch
-
or his bond, are void because, as he stated, the law had appointed no act to be done for avoiding them. Thompson v. LeachSearch
-
has never been disturbed, and, so far as we know, has never been doubted. It was followed by the case of Yates v. BoenSearch
-
and offered to give lunacy in evidence. Upon the authority of Thompson v. LeachSearch
-
and Smith v. CarrSearch
-
decided in 1728, the evidence was received. The doctrine of Thompson v. LeachSearch
-
was asserted also in Ball v. ManninSearch
-
the judgment was affirmed. It is therefore the settled law of England, and it has been since the decision in Thompson v. LeachSearch
-
release or grant. Sir William Blackstone, it is true, appears to have overlooked the distinction made in Thompson v. LeachSearch
-
the old rule, has laid down that deeds of lunatics are avoidable only, and not actually void. But in Thompson v. LeachSearch
-
was actually void. This, therefore, was the ground of the decision in Yates v. BoenSearch
-
courts have followed Mr. Justice Blackstone and Beverly's Case, without noticing the distinction made in Leach v. ThompsonSearch
-
Yates v. BoenSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
is absolutely null and void, and the distinction between his feoffment and his deed was recognized. So also in Rogers v. WalkerSearch
-
Since the time of Thompson v. LeachSearch
-
does not allow him to stultify himself -- an early absurdity of the common law which was exploded with us by Bensell v. ChancellorSearch
-
degree. With a lunatic, it is wanting altogether. Yet it is universally held, as laid down by Lord Mansfield in Zouch v. ParsonsSearch
-
Saunderson v. MarrSearch
-
Lawrence v. McArterSearch
-
Pyle v. CravensSearch
-
Whitney v. DutchSearch
-
Fonda v. VanSearch
-
Sills v. BrownSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Dexter v. HallSearch
-
England. In Thompson v. LeachSearch
-
Thompson v. LeachSearch
-
of Yates v. BoenSearch
-
of Thompson v. LeachSearch
-
Ball v. ManninSearch
-
Leach v. ThompsonSearch
-
Jackson v. GumaerSearch
-
Rogers v. WalkerSearch
-
Bensell v. ChancellorSearch
-
Zouch v. ParsonsSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial