Citation network
Airhart Vs. Massieu
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 01, 1878
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. 491 (1878) U.S. Supreme Court Airhart v. MassieuSearch
-
U.S. 491 (1878) Airhart v. MassieuSearch
-
of empire seems to be settled. Mr. Justice Nelson, delivering the opinion of this Court in the case of Jones v. McMastersSearch
-
Texas, was the general law of the infant state, and in some of the early cases in Texas, as in the Heirs of Holliman v. PeeblesSearch
-
Tex. 673, and in Yates v. IamsSearch
-
alien could not hold real estate. The same views were expressed in the case Page 98 U. S. 496 of McKinney v. SaviegoSearch
-
of law resulting from events beyond their control. This precise question came before this Court in the case of Jones v. McMastersSearch
-
is undisputed that the division of an empire works no forfeiture of a right of property previously acquired. Kelly v. HarrisonSearch
-
contrary since that time. The same views were expressed, and many authorities cited in support thereof, in Kilpatrick v. SisnerosSearch
-
also in Sabriego v. WhiteSearch
-
id. 581-584, decided in 1868 -- all which cases are recognized in the late case of Andrews v. SpearSearch
-
in Mexico, lands situated in Texas. This point was settled by the late decision of this Court in the case of Conrad v. WaplesSearch
-
title's being void, since no law has been framed to provide the means for declaring forfeitures for alienage. Hancock v. McKinneySearch
-
Swift v. HerreraSearch
-
Johnson v. SmithSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Luter v. MayfieldSearch
-
title. The later cases in Texas have fully established this doctrine. We refer particularly to the cases of Sabriego v. WhiteSearch
-
Settegast v. SchrimpfSearch
-
and Andrews v. SpearSearch
-
cases have undoubtedly decided that an alien cannot sue for lands in Texas. The last case referred to is that of White v. SabriegoSearch
-
descent or purchase before the division of the empire and the change of government. In the subsequent case of Sabriego v. WhiteSearch
-
to forfeit it, Page 98 U. S. 500 and hence that she was entitled to maintain her action. The case of Jones v. McMastersSearch
-
cover the case under consideration. And such is the judgment of the Supreme Court of Texas. In the case of Guilbeau v. MaysSearch
-
This case is corroborated by the subsequent cases of Musquis v. BlakeSearch
-
Nicholson v. HortonSearch
-
Wilson v. WilliamsSearch
-
Byrne v. FaganSearch
-
Chambers v. FiskSearch
-
of the immunity arising from the fact that such title is not recorded nor deposited in the land office. Crosby v. HustonSearch
-
Grumbles v. SneedSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Airhart v. MassieuSearch
-
of Jones v. McMastersSearch
-
the Heirs of Holliman v. PeeblesSearch
-
Yates v. IamsSearch
-
of McKinney v. SaviegoSearch
-
Kelly v. HarrisonSearch
-
Kilpatrick v. SisnerosSearch
-
Sabriego v. WhiteSearch
-
of Andrews v. SpearSearch
-
of Conrad v. WaplesSearch
-
Hancock v. McKinneySearch
-
of Sabriego v. WhiteSearch
-
of White v. SabriegoSearch
-
of Guilbeau v. MaysSearch
-
of Musquis v. BlakeSearch
-
Byrne v. FaganSearch
-
Crosby v. HustonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial