Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Harkness Vs. Russell

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Nov 08, 1886

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

81 entries 81 unlinked
Show
  1. U.S. 663 (1886) U.S. Supreme Court Harkness v. Russell
    Search
  2. U.S. 663 (1886) Harkness v. Russell
    Search
  3. The author cites for this proposition Bishop v. Stillito
    Search
  4. Brandt v. Bowlby
    Search
  5. Barrow v. Coles
    Search
  6. Swain v. Shepherd
    Search
  7. Mires v. Solebay
    Search
  8. of the buyer, who is to account for any deficiency between the second sale and the first. Such was the case of Lamond v. Davall
    Search
  9. Q.B. 1030, and many more cases could be cited. In Crawcour v. Robertson
    Search
  10. by his trustee under a liquidation proceeding. The same conclusion was reached in the subsequent case of Crawcour v. Salter
    Search
  11. The following case presents a fair illustration of the English law as based upon the statutes of bankruptcy. In Horn v. Baker
    Search
  12. arising from the possession and apparent order and disposition of the goods. This case was followed in Holroyd v. Gwynne
    Search
  13. possession, both as between the parties themselves and as to third persons. Page 118 U. S. 671 In Hussey v. Thornton
    Search
  14. that the goods could not be attached by the creditors of the vendee. This case was followed in 1822 by that of Marston v. Baldwin
    Search
  15. to be ready to repay the money when he should be requested, and a verdict for the plaintiff was sustained. In Barrett v. Pritchard
    Search
  16. to imagine any good reason why this agreement should not bind the parties. . . . The case from Taunton, Holroyd v. Gwynn
    Search
  17. treated as his property, and shall be assigned by the commissioners for the benefit of his creditors. The case of Horn v. Baker
    Search
  18. In Coggill v. Hartford
    Search
  19. Page 118 U. S. 673 This case was followed in Sargent v. Metcalf
    Search
  20. Deshon v. Bigelow
    Search
  21. Whitney v. Eaton
    Search
  22. Hirschorn v. Canney
    Search
  23. Mass. 149, and Chase v. Ingalls
    Search
  24. in Connecticut, and was sustained in an able and learned opinion of Chief Justice Williams in the case of Forbes v. Marsh
    Search
  25. in which the principal authorities are reviewed. The decision in this case was followed in the subsequent case of Hart v. Carpenter
    Search
  26. opinion in its application to bona fide purchasers from such vendee. As early as 1822, in the case of Haggerty v. Palmer
    Search
  27. appropriated by the assignees before notice of this suit and of injunction, the remedy would have been gone. In Strong v. Taylor
    Search
  28. under the instruction of the court, and was sustained in banc upon the authority of the Massachusetts case of Barrett v. Pritchard
    Search
  29. Page 118 U. S. 674 2 Pick. 512. In Herring v. Hoppock
    Search
  30. been settled by the previous cases, and the court unanimously concurred in the decision. In the cases of Smith v. Lynes
    Search
  31. Seld. (5 N.Y.) 41, and Wait v. Green
    Search
  32. the original vendor. These cases were reviewed and we think, substantially overruled in the subsequent case of Ballard v. Burgett
    Search
  33. s claim, and subsequent cases in New York are in Page 118 U. S. 675 harmony with this decision. See Cole v. Mann
    Search
  34. Bean v. Edge
    Search
  35. N.Y. 510. We do not perceive that the case of Dows v. Kidder
    Search
  36. N.Y. 121, is adverse to the ruling in Ballard v. Burgett
    Search
  37. from the first purchaser was not bound by the equities between him and the plaintiff. The later case of Parker v. Baxter
    Search
  38. N.Y. 586, was precisely similar to Dows v. Kidder
    Search
  39. and the same principle was involved in Farwell v. Importers'
    Search
  40. to another, shall remain the property of the vendor, shall be valid against third persons without notice. George v. Stubbs
    Search
  41. Sawyer v. Fisher
    Search
  42. Brown v. Haynes
    Search
  43. Boynton v. Libby
    Search
  44. Rogers v. Whitehouse
    Search
  45. Sargent v. Gile
    Search
  46. McFarland v. Farmer
    Search
  47. King v. Bates
    Search
  48. Hefflin v. Bell
    Search
  49. Armington v. Houston
    Search
  50. Fales v. Roberts
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial