Citation network
Campbell Vs. Holt
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Dec 07, 1885
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. 620 (1885) U.S. Supreme Court Campbell v. HoltSearch
-
U.S. 620 (1885) Campbell v. HoltSearch
-
of his legal rights has lost him his title. This doctrine has been repeatedly asserted in this Court. Leffingwell v. WarrenSearch
-
ground. A case aptly illustrating this difference in the effect of the statute of limitations is found in Smart v. BaughSearch
-
in vesting rights to real and personal property and its operation as a defense to contracts is well stated in Jones v. JonesSearch
-
is complete, it is no defense, if he can be found, to a suit in another country. In the case of Williams v. JonesSearch
-
The decisions are numerous to the same effect in the American courts. In the case of Le Roy v. CrowninshieldSearch
-
if the question were res nova, sound principle might require a different decision. But in the case of Townsend v. JemisonSearch
-
How. 407, Mr. Justice Wayne says that in the previous case of McElmoyle v. CohenSearch
-
as a defense in the courts of another state, though the contract be made in the former. In this case of Townsend v. JemisonSearch
-
in the latter state, and which, by the laws of that state, was barred by the lapse of time. In the case of McElmoyle v. CohenSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
court a judgment for the value of his services on the ground that the first statute only affected the remedy. Hewitt v. WilcoxSearch
-
usury, in enabling parties to recover on contracts in which the law forbids such recovery before the repeal. Wood v. KennedySearch
-
Welch v. WadsworthSearch
-
Butler v. PalmerSearch
-
Hampton v. CommonwealthSearch
-
Bauer v. NelsonSearch
-
are founded in public needs and public policy, are arbitrary enactments by the lawmaking power. Tioga Railroad v. BlossburgSearch
-
when the law restores a remedy which had been lost. An instructive case on this subject is that of Foster v. PageSearch
-
up, within two years after the adoption of the new constitution, Page 115 U. S. 630 in the case of Bender v. CrawfordSearch
-
the cases on the subject referred to in the opinion of the Commissioners of Appeal in the present case are Rivers v. WashingtonSearch
-
Dwight v. OvertonSearch
-
Moseley v. LeeSearch
-
Bentinck v. FranklinSearch
-
Wood v. WelderSearch
-
Tex. 396, and Lewis v. DavidsonSearch
-
will be referred to. On the purpose and object of statutes of limitation, Chief Justice Marshall, in Clementson v. WilliamsSearch
-
the suit is brought, the right to bring the suit is barred, and no subsequent statute can renew the right. McKinney v. SpringerSearch
-
Stipp v. BrownSearch
-
Davis v. MinorSearch
-
Bradford v. BrooksSearch
-
Baldro v. TolmieSearch
-
Girdner v. StephensSearch
-
Bigelow v. BemisSearch
-
Ryder v. WilsonSearch
-
N.J.Law 11. See also Prentice v. DehonSearch
-
Allen 354, and Ball v. WyethSearch
-
Mass. 339. In Bigelow v. BemisSearch
-
In Ryder v. Wilson'sSearch
-
In Davis v. MinorSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Campbell v. HoltSearch
-
Court. Leffingwell v. WarrenSearch
-
Smart v. BaughSearch
-
Jones v. JonesSearch
-
of Williams v. JonesSearch
-
of Le Roy v. CrowninshieldSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial