Citation network
Dodge Vs. Woolsey
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 01, 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. 331 (1885) U.S. Supreme Court Dodge v. WoolseySearch
-
U.S. 18 How. 331 331 (1885) Dodge v. WoolseySearch
-
imposed -- upon it by the Constitution of the United States. The case of Piqua Branch of the State Bank of Ohio v. KnoopSearch
-
denial of a right growing out of it, for which there is not an adequate remedy at law. 2 Russ. & Mylne Ch., Cunliffe v. ManchesterSearch
-
Ware v. GrandSearch
-
Bagshaw v. EasternSearch
-
Angell & Ames, 4th ed. 424, and the other cases there cited. It was ruled in the case of Cunliffe v. ManchesterSearch
-
In the case of Ware v. GrandSearch
-
The same jurisdiction was invoked and applied in the case of Bagshaw v. EasternSearch
-
so also in Coleman v. SameSearch
-
the profits of the company in the purchase of shares in another company. The dividend says Lord Langdale in Solamons v. LaingSearch
-
but when the case of Hodges v. NewSearch
-
have been brought in the name of the corporation, in support of which they cited the case of Bank of the United States v. OsbornSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
by which it reversed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio, in the case of Piqua Branch of State Bank of Ohio v. KnoopSearch
-
it is derived, and that it is no objection to this jurisdiction, that there is a remedy under the local law. Gordon v. HobartSearch
-
of Congress. Hitherto, no such case as we have supposed has happened, but a reference to the case of Hylton v. UnitedSearch
-
as have been already mentioned. It is the power of Congress to regulate commerce, and we refer to the case of Brown v. StateSearch
-
been the result, neither could complain of the disinterestedness of the court which adjudged their rights. Beatty v. LesseeSearch
-
in the argument of it, that the only difference between this case and that of Piqua Branch of State of Ohio v. KnoopSearch
-
of justice is not the less. This case is coincident with that of the Piqua Branch of the State Bank of Ohio v. KnoopSearch
-
Hill v. ManchesterSearch
-
Dunston v. ImperialSearch
-
Geer v. SchoolSearch
-
Rogers v. DanbySearch
-
the Circuit Court of the United States for Ohio, and thus made a case which subsequently came to this Court. Deshler v. DodgeSearch
-
between citizens of different states, or citizens of a state and foreign states, citizens or subjects. In Marshall v. BaltimoreSearch
-
It is clear, therefore, that the corporation was a necessary party to the bill, and so are the adjudged cases. Bagshaw v. EastSearch
-
Cunningham v. PellSearch
-
Rumney v. MonceSearch
-
Charles. Ins. & T. Co. v. SebringSearch
-
and relying upon the case of Marshall v. BaltimoreSearch
-
could be bound except by his own consent. This principle has the highest sanction in the decisions of that court. Foss v. HarbottleSearch
-
between the officers and members of a chartered corporation and the corporation itself. These are explained in Smith v. HurdSearch
-
of the obligation incidental to the office imposed upon them and which they assumed to perform, or, as said in Travis v. MylneSearch
-
Stainton v. CarronSearch
-
Travis v. MilneSearch
-
Hersey v. VeazieSearch
-
Colquitt v. HowardSearch
-
The case here does not at all fulfill the conditions on which the interposition of a shareholder is allowable. Elmslie v. McAulaySearch
-
Law v. LawSearch
-
Walker v. TrottSearch
-
one answer to the question. I come now to the merits of the case made by the bill. In the suit of Piqua Bank v. KnoopSearch
-
corruption, the blindness, nor mischievous effects of state legislation to determine its binding operation. Fletcher v. PeckSearch
-
its members to the people is a necessary condition for the safety of the popular rights. Justice Woodbury, in Luther v. BordenSearch
-
The prohibition is a limitation upon the ordinary government, and not upon the popular sovereignty. In Fletcher v. PeckSearch
-
and treats the clause of the Constitution under consideration as an inhibition on legislation. In Dartmouth College v. WoodwardSearch
-
limit, and portions of which are not easily reconciled with a long series of cases subsequently decided, Satterlee v. MatthewsonSearch
-
West River Bridge v. DixSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial