Citation network
Cromwell Vs. County of Sac
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 01, 1877
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
-
Cromwell v. CountySearch
-
of Sac - 96 U.S. 51 (1877) U.S. Supreme Court Cromwell v. CountySearch
-
of Sac, 96 U.S. 51 (1877) Cromwell v. CountySearch
-
before maturity, but that he had given value for them, and, not having done so, the judgment was affirmed. Smith v. SacSearch
-
The judgment was accordingly reversed Page 96 U. S. 53 and the cause remanded for a new trial. Cromwell v. CountySearch
-
to each of the bonds was then past due and unpaid. There was a special verdict referring to the judgment in Smith v. SacSearch
-
whether the judgment in Smith v. SacSearch
-
been bad faith on his part. Such is the decision of this Court, and substantially its language, in the case of Murray v. LanderSearch
-
and subsequent coupons before their maturity for value as a bona fide purchaser. National Bank of North America v. KirbySearch
-
as collateral security for a precedent debt may be limited in his recovery to the amount advanced or secured. Stoddard v. KimballSearch
-
Allaire v. HartshorneSearch
-
Williams v. SmithSearch
-
Chicopee Bank v. ChapinSearch
-
Lay v. WissmanSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
court, contracts drawing a specified rate of interest before maturity draw the same rate of interest afterwards. Hand v. ArmstrongSearch
-
Lucas, Thompson & Co. v. PickelSearch
-
id. 490. A like decision has been made in several of the states upon similar statutes. Brannon v. HursellSearch
-
Marietta Iron Works v. LottimerSearch
-
Monett v. SturgesSearch
-
Kitgore v. PowersSearch
-
Phinney v. BaldwinSearch
-
Etnyre v. McDanielSearch
-
Spencer v. MaxfieldSearch
-
Pruyn v. CitySearch
-
Kohler v. SmithSearch
-
McLane v. AbramsSearch
-
Hopkins v. CrittendenSearch
-
of the doctrine that the stipulated rate of interest attends the contract until it is merged in the judgment. Pearce v. HennesseySearch
-
Lash v. LambertSearch
-
Searle v. AdamsSearch
-
Kitchen v. BranchSearch
-
rate should be allowed between the maturity of the contract and the entry of the judgment. The case of Brewster v. WakefieldSearch
-
the rate at the place of payment, the parties may contract for either rate, and the contract will govern. Miller v. TiffanySearch
-
Depau v. HumphreysSearch
-
Chapman v. RobertsonSearch
-
Peck v. MayoSearch
-
Butters v. OldsSearch
-
only at the rate of six percent under the law of Iowa. See, as to coupons drawing interest, Aurora City v. WestSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Cromwell v. CountySearch
-
Smith v. SacSearch
-
of Murray v. LanderSearch
-
National Bank of North America v. KirbySearch
-
Stoddard v. KimballSearch
-
Hand v. ArmstrongSearch
-
Brannon v. HursellSearch
-
Pearce v. HennesseySearch
-
of Brewster v. WakefieldSearch
-
Miller v. TiffanySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial