Citation network
Barton Vs. Barbour
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. 126 (1881) U.S. Supreme Court Barton v. BarbourSearch
-
U.S. 126 (1881) Barton v. BarbourSearch
-
that before suit is brought against a receiver, leave of the court by which he was appointed must be obtained. Davis v. GraySearch
-
the defendant in his capacity as receiver, and the execution would run against the property in his hands as such. Hall v. SmithSearch
-
Camp v. BarneySearch
-
Commonwealth v. RunkSearch
-
Thompson v. ScottSearch
-
In either case, leave should be first obtained. And it has been so held, in effect, by this Court. In Wiswall v. SampsonSearch
-
So in Ames v. TrusteesSearch
-
by a common carrier makes his case any exception to the rule under consideration. It was said by this Court in Cowdrey v. GalvestonSearch
-
jurisdiction to entertain a suit. This point has been substantially settled by this Court in the case of Peale v. PhippsSearch
-
seeks to establish a demand against the receiver for a claim which, according to the decision of this Court ( Cowdrey v. GalvestonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Palys v. JewettSearch
-
Kinney v. CrockerSearch
-
Allen v. CentralSearch
-
equity to try such issues according to its own course of practice is too well settled to be shaken. Rubber Company v. GoodyearSearch
-
against him personally as a matter of right, for in such case the receiver would be acting ultra vires. Parker v. BrowningSearch
-
Paige v. SmithSearch
-
Hills v. ParkerSearch
-
be sold to the best advantage of all interested. The power of the court to do this was expressly recognized in Wallace v. LoomisSearch
-
to protect him by injunction against parties suing him in another court and to punish them for contempt. Wiswall v. SampsonSearch
-
How. 52, and Peale v. PhippsSearch
-
the time. The Court did not decide that he could not be used at law for any tort committed by him as receiver. Peale v. PhippsSearch
-
views are well sustained by the authorities collected in the brief of the plaintiff's counsel, especially in Angel v. SmithSearch
-
Hill v. ParkerSearch
-
Chautauque County Bank v. RisleySearch
-
Sprague v. SmithSearch
-
Vt. 421. The doctrine is stated with admirable precision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin in the case of Kinney v. CrockerSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Barton v. BarbourSearch
-
Davis v. GraySearch
-
Hall v. SmithSearch
-
Court. In Wiswall v. SampsonSearch
-
Ames v. TrusteesSearch
-
Cowdrey v. GalvestonSearch
-
of Peale v. PhippsSearch
-
Parker v. BrowningSearch
-
and Peale v. PhippsSearch
-
Angel v. SmithSearch
-
of Kinney v. CrockerSearch
-
Rubber Company v. GoodyearSearch
-
Peale v. PhippsSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial