Citation network
Lamar Vs. Micou
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Dec 01, 1884
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. 452 (1884) U.S. Supreme Court Lamar v. MicouSearch
-
U.S. 452 (1884) Lamar v. MicouSearch
-
suspends until the return of peace the right of anyone residing in the enemy's country to sue in our courts. Ward v. SmithSearch
-
Montgomery v. UnitedSearch
-
Insurance Co. v. DavisSearch
-
Kershaw v. KelseySearch
-
lent on a mere personal obligation, like a promissory note, without security, was at the risk of the trustee. Ryder v. BickertonSearch
-
Barney v. SaundersSearch
-
because it depended upon the management of the governor and directors, and the capital might be wholly lost, Trafford v. BoehmSearch
-
Jackson v. JacksonSearch
-
taking his bills therefor on London, was not responsible for the loss of the money by his becoming bankrupt. Knight v. PlymouthSearch
-
In a very recent case, the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords, following the decisions of Lord Hardwick, in Knight v. PlymouthSearch
-
Speight v. GauntSearch
-
of trust investments. In New York, under Chancellor Kent, the rule seems to have been quite undefined. See Smith v. SmithSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Thompson v. BrownSearch
-
Johns.Ch. 619, 628, 629, where the chancellor quoted the passage above cited from Lord Hardwicke's opinion in Knight v. PlymouthSearch
-
And in Brown v. CampbellSearch
-
that a trustee can safely make without an express order of court are in government or real estate securities. King v. TalbotSearch
-
Ackerman v. EmottSearch
-
Mills v. HoffmanSearch
-
of banks or other business corporations, or otherwise than in the public funds or in mortgages of real estate. Gray v. FoxSearch
-
Halsted v. MeekerSearch
-
Lathrop v. SmalleySearch
-
shown a strong disinclination to permit investments in real estate or securities out of their jurisdiction. Ormiston v. OlcottSearch
-
the stock of banking, insurance, manufacturing, or railroad corporations within or without the state. Harvard College v. AmorySearch
-
Lovell v. MinotSearch
-
Kinmonth v. BrighamSearch
-
Clark v. GarfieldSearch
-
Brown v. FrenchSearch
-
Bowker v. PierceSearch
-
investments, honestly and prudently made, in securities of any kind that produce income appear to be allowed. Knowlton v. BradleySearch
-
Kimball v. RedingSearch
-
French v. CurrierSearch
-
Barney v. ParsonsSearch
-
as well as government securities and mortgages on real estate, has always been considered a proper investment. Hammond v. HammondSearch
-
Gray v. LynchSearch
-
Murray v. FeinourSearch
-
Md.Ch. 418. So, in Mississippi, investment in bank stock is allowed. Smyth v. BurnsSearch
-
than that guardians and trustees must manage the funds in their hands as prudent men manage their own affairs. Boggs v. AdgerSearch
-
Spear v. SpearSearch
-
Snelling v. McCrearySearch
-
Brown v. WrightSearch
-
Moses v. MosesSearch
-
Ga. 9, 33. In Alabama the supreme court in Bryant v. CraigSearch
-
Foscue v. LyonSearch
-
decisions is to defer to the law of the domicile and to support the authority of the guardian appointed there. Hoyt v. SpragueSearch
-
Morrell v. DickeySearch
-
Woodworth v. SpringSearch
-
Milliken v. PrattSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial