Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

United States Vs. Lee

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Dec 04, 1882

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

74 entries 11 linked 63 unlinked
Show
  1. Atwood Vs. Weems US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1878
  2. United States Vs. O'Keefe US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1870
  3. United States Vs. Mclemore US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1847
  4. Nations Vs. Johnson US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1860
  5. Luther Vs. Borden US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1849
  6. Georgia Vs. Stanton US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1867
  7. Brown Vs. Huger US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1858
  8. Bennett Vs. Hunter US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1869
  9. Tacey Vs. Irwin US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1873
  10. Governor of Georgia Vs. Madrazo US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1828
  11. Grisar Vs. Mcdowell US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1869
  12. U.S. 196 (1882) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Lee
    Search
  13. U.S. 196 (1882) United States v. Lee
    Search
  14. the owner in person, it avoids such sale and a tender is unnecessary, since it would be of no avail. 5. Bennett v. Hunter
    Search
  15. Wall. 324, Tacey v. Irwin
    Search
  16. id. 549, and Atwood v. Weems
    Search
  17. action in thus preventing payment was the equivalent of payment in its effect upon the certificate of sale. Bennett v. Hunter
    Search
  18. Taxey v. Irwin
    Search
  19. been actually paid or tendered. The proposition is thus expressed by this Court at its last term in the case of Hills v. Albany
    Search
  20. decisions to the case before us is denied by counsel on two grounds. The first of these is that the case of Bennett v. Hunter
    Search
  21. tax under this statute existed except by the owner in person. The reply to this is that in the cases of Bennett v. Hunter
    Search
  22. and Taxey v. Irwin
    Search
  23. from the opinion of Chief Justice Page 106 U. S. 203 Chase, who spoke for the Court in the case of Bennett v. Hunter
    Search
  24. as its substitute of 1863, gave the right to redeem after the sale was made. It is clear, therefore, that Bennett v. Hunter
    Search
  25. and Atwood v. Weems
    Search
  26. were decisions construing the substituted seventh section of 1863. In the case of Turner v. Smith
    Search
  27. possibility of the land being struck off to the United States. Page 106 U. S. 204 In the case of Cooley v. O'Connor
    Search
  28. runs in the name of the President and may be served on the Attorney General, as was done in the case of Chisholm v. Georgia
    Search
  29. Briggs v. The
    Search
  30. where by the Constitution a state Page 106 U. S. 207 of the Union may be sued in this Court. Railroad Co. v. Tennessee
    Search
  31. Railroad Company v. Alabama
    Search
  32. in the early history of this Court may be seen from the opinions of two of its Justices in the case of Chisholm v. Georgia
    Search
  33. the same rule. The first recognition of the general doctrine by this Court is to be found in the case of Cohens v. Virginia
    Search
  34. been discussed or the reasons for it given, but it has always been treated as an established doctrine. United States v. Clarke
    Search
  35. Hill v. United
    Search
  36. and will not embarrass the latter by assuming an antagonistic jurisdiction. Such were the cases of The Exchange v. McFaddon
    Search
  37. down, and which, bearing a close analogy to the one before us, seems decisive of it, is that of the United States v. Peters
    Search
  38. the money until a better right was established. But the very next case in this Court of a similar character, Meigs v. McClung's
    Search
  39. court and of the eminent man who had, only six years before, delivered the opinion in the case of the United States v. Peters
    Search
  40. the United States of an occupied garrison by the judgment against the officers in charge of it. In Wilcox v. Jackson
    Search
  41. by counsel on either side, or considered by the Court. There is a very satisfactory reason for this. United States v. Peters
    Search
  42. Meigs v. McClung
    Search
  43. and Osborn v. Bank
    Search
  44. the principle was fully discussed, and in the other necessarily decided in the negative. And in Governor of Georgia v. Madrazo
    Search
  45. most of the judges were still on the bench, including the Chief Justice, who had made those decisions. Osborn v. Bank
    Search
  46. The decree of the circuit court ordering a restitution of the money was affirmed. Grisar v. McDowell
    Search
  47. not denied, that the property was held for public use by a military officer under orders from the President. Brown v. Huger
    Search
  48. to be insufficient. These decisions have never been overruled. On the contrary, as late as the case of Davis v. Gray
    Search
  49. Wall. 203, the case of Osborn v. Bank
    Search
  50. the Court has held the principle to be unsound, and in the class of cases like the present, represented by Wilcox v. Jackson
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial