Citation network
Hilton Vs. Dickinson
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 28, 1883
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. 165 (1883) U.S. Supreme Court Hilton v. DickinsonSearch
-
U.S. 165 (1883) Hilton v. DickinsonSearch
-
docketed, but long after the time when by law it should have been done, and, following the rule announced in Griggsby v. PurcellSearch
-
are found where the facts did not require a decision of the question now formally presented. In Wilson v. DanielSearch
-
In Cooke v. WoodrowSearch
-
Lynn v. ColumbianSearch
-
Page 108 U. S. 171 In Peyton v. RobertsonSearch
-
The writ of error was accordingly dismissed. The case of Gordon v. OgdenSearch
-
Page 108 U. S. 172 Then, referring to Wilson v. DanielSearch
-
the parties as the case stands upon the writ of error, we should be much inclined to adhere to the decision in Wilson v. DanielSearch
-
had not a contrary practice since prevailed. . . . The case of Wise v. ColumbianSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
dismissed, all the judges agreeing that there was no jurisdiction. This case was followed at the same term in Smith v. HoneySearch
-
with the particular question we are now considering appears in the reported cases until 1844, when, in Knapp v. BanksSearch
-
The rule as thus stated by Mr. Justice Story, was cited in Walker v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 4 Wall. 163, and in Merrill v. PattySearch
-
In Ryan v. BindleySearch
-
In Pierce v. WadeSearch
-
In Lamar v. MicouSearch
-
without entitling the defendant to a decree in his own favor, there was no jurisdiction. We understand that Wilson v. DanielSearch
-
is overruled by Gordon v. OgdenSearch
-
and that Wilson v. DanielSearch
-
that the sum demanded is not the real matter in dispute, the sum shown, and not the sum demanded, will prevail. Lee v. WatsonSearch
-
Schacker v. HartfordSearch
-
Tintsman v. NationalSearch
-
Banking Association v. InsuranceSearch
-
Association, 102 U. S. 121 . Under this rule it has always been assumed, since Cooke v. WoodrowSearch
-
that is to say, as it stands in this Court. That was the question in Wilson v. DanielSearch
-
When, therefore, that case was overruled in Gordon v. OgdenSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Hilton v. DickinsonSearch
-
Griggsby v. PurcellSearch
-
In Wilson v. DanielSearch
-
of Wise & Lynn v. ColumbianSearch
-
In Peyton v. RobertsonSearch
-
of Gordon v. OgdenSearch
-
Wilson v. DanielSearch
-
of Wise v. ColumbianSearch
-
Smith v. HoneySearch
-
Walker v. UnitedSearch
-
Merrill v. PattySearch
-
Cooke v. WoodrowSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial