Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Applegate Vs. Lexington and Carter County Mining Co.

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 15, 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

53 entries 6 linked 47 unlinked
Show
  1. Winn Vs. Patterson US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1835
  2. Harvey Vs. Tyler US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1864
  3. Stebbins Vs. Duncan US Supreme Court · Mar 05, 1883
  4. Grignon's Lessee Vs. Astor US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1844
  5. Kempe's Lessee Vs. Kennedy US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1809
  6. Pennoyer Vs. Neff US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1878
    Distinguished
  7. Applegate v. Lexington
    Search
  8. Carter County Mining Co. - 117 U.S. 255 (1886) U.S. Supreme Court Applegate v. Lexington
    Search
  9. Carter County Mining Co., 117 U.S. 255 (1886) Applegate v. Lexington
    Search
  10. the original deed, is competent and sufficient evidence that the deed was put on record in the year named. Stebbins v. Duncan
    Search
  11. also a part. 10. A certified copy from the Mason County Circuit Court of the record in the case of Carey L. Clark v. Joseph
    Search
  12. Fleming to John and William Bryan, and the copy of the record from the Mason County Circuit Court in the case of Clark v. Conkling
    Search
  13. Court of Greenup County, Kentucky, among the original papers of a suit in that court brought by one James Hughes v. The
    Search
  14. collateral fact of the antiquity of the original deeds offered in evidence and to account for their custody. Barr v. Gratz
    Search
  15. offered in evidence by the plaintiffs in this case, which were found among the other papers in the case of Hughes v. The
    Search
  16. and was shown to be proper and beyond suspicion. It further appeared that upon the trial of the case of Hughes v. Shore's
    Search
  17. the other without signature, to the effect that the deeds had been recorded in the year 1816. In the case of Stebbins v. Duncan
    Search
  18. other corroborative evidence of its authenticity freeing it from all just grounds of suspicion. Thus, in Barr v. Gratz
    Search
  19. support of the decree in that suit, it was admissible without the regular proof of its execution. So, in Caruthers v. Eldridge
    Search
  20. expected under all the circumstances of the case, and as will afford the presumption that it is genuine. In Harlan v. Howard
    Search
  21. Doe v. Passingham
    Search
  22. Rancliffe v. Parkyns
    Search
  23. Jackson v. Laroway
    Search
  24. Hewlett v. Cock
    Search
  25. the deed was always sufficient without other proof, but it was not indispensable. He approved the decision in Jackson v. Laroway
    Search
  26. ubi supra, which he said had been recognized as law in Jackson v. Luquere
    Search
  27. In the same year in which they were recorded, they were mentioned and referred to in the bill filed by Hughes v. Shore's
    Search
  28. it. It remains to consider the exclusion by the circuit court of transcript of the record in the case of Clark v. Conkling
    Search
  29. jurisdiction, and are so clear as to require no discussion of the question, for, as was said in Grignon's Lessee v. Astor
    Search
  30. indeed the statute expressly or by implication requires it. The court which made the decree in the case of Clark v. Conkling
    Search
  31. every presumption not inconsistent with the record is to be indulged in favor of its jurisdiction. Kempe's Lessee v. Kennedy
    Search
  32. Voorhees v. Bank
    Search
  33. Grignon v. Astor
    Search
  34. In Harvey v. Tyler
    Search
  35. P. 69 U. S. 342 . In Hall v. Law
    Search
  36. The case of Voorhees v. Bank
    Search
  37. of record, and the judgment of the court, so far as it affects such property, will be valid. The case of Galpin v. Page
    Search
  38. was the unauthorized act of the party, and appeared affirmatively to be invalid and ineffectual. See also Pennoyer v. Neff
    Search
  39. U.S. Supreme Court Applegate v. Lexington
    Search
  40. of Carey L. Clark v. Joseph
    Search
  41. of Clark v. Conkling
    Search
  42. James Hughes v. The
    Search
  43. Barr v. Gratz
    Search
  44. of Hughes v. The
    Search
  45. of Hughes v. Shore's
    Search
  46. of Stebbins v. Duncan
    Search
  47. Caruthers v. Eldridge
    Search
  48. In Harlan v. Howard
    Search
  49. Jackson v. Luquere
    Search
  50. Hughes v. Shore's
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial