Citation network
MartIn Vs. Cole
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 01, 1881
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. 30 (1881) U.S. Supreme Court Martin v. ColeSearch
-
U.S. 30 (1881) Martin v. ColeSearch
-
contemporaneous parol agreement that the endorsement was without recourse is inadmissible. 2. The ruling in Wills v. ClaflinSearch
-
fix and Page 104 U. S. 36 determine their rights and obligations, as was decided by this court in Davis v. BrownSearch
-
remote innocent holder of negotiable paper. Accordingly, Mr. Justice Washington, in Susquehanna Bridge & Bank Co. v. EvansSearch
-
which such proof is held to be admissible. It is declared, for example, by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in Ross v. EspySearch
-
So in an early case in New Jersey, Johnson v. MartinusSearch
-
to its effect, protection, or immunity. This case, however, was expressly overruled by the same court in Chaddock v. VannessSearch
-
Citing Abrey v. CruxSearch
-
in the case Page 104 U. S. 38 cited was expressly rejected by this Court in Bank of the United States v. DunnSearch
-
being that parol evidence is not admissible to vary a written agreement, citing the language of the Court in Renner v. BankSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
of this case on this point has never been questioned in this Court, the explanation and qualification in Davis v. BrownSearch
-
was admitted because it was in writing and part of the transaction. The case of Bank of the United States v. DunnSearch
-
supra, is cited as an authority upon the point in Phillips v. PrestonSearch
-
It is also referred to in terms and followed in Brown v. WileySearch
-
or undefined period, tended to alter and vary in a very material degree its operation and effect. See Thompson v. KetchumSearch
-
itself, but imported by construction of law, as constituting the operation and effect of the contract. In Specht v. HowardSearch
-
The same quotation forms part of the opinion in Forsythe v. KimballSearch
-
in equity as at law. The same principle, upon the authority of these cases, was affirmed by this court in Brown v. SpoffordSearch
-
U. S. 474 , and is assumed to be the law in Cox v. NationalSearch
-
Bank, 100 U. S. 704 , and Brent's Ex'rs v. BankSearch
-
the maker of the note. It clearly appears that it would have been unavailing on account of his insolvency. In Wills v. ClaflinSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Martin v. ColeSearch
-
Davis v. BrownSearch
-
Susquehanna Bridge & Bank Co. v. EvansSearch
-
Ross v. EspySearch
-
New Jersey, Johnson v. MartinusSearch
-
Chaddock v. VannessSearch
-
Renner v. BankSearch
-
of Bank of the United States v. DunnSearch
-
See Thompson v. KetchumSearch
-
In Specht v. HowardSearch
-
Brown v. SpoffordSearch
-
Cox v. NationalSearch
-
and Brent's Ex'rs v. BankSearch
-
In Wills v. ClaflinSearch
-
Brown v. WileySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial