Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Patch Vs. White

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 01, 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

43 entries 1 linked 42 unlinked
Show
  1. Abbott Vs. Abbott US Supreme Court · May 03, 2010
  2. U.S. 210 (1886) U.S. Supreme Court Patch v. White
    Search
  3. U.S. 210 (1886) Patch v. White
    Search
  4. the subject is not in existence, or does not belong to the testator. The case of the Roman Catholic Orphan Asylum v. Emmons
    Search
  5. Bank shares. See also a learned note of Chief Justice Redfield, 10 Am.Law Reg. N.S. 93, to the case of Kurtz v. Hibner
    Search
  6. Ill. 514, in which he strongly disapproves the decision in that case. Chief Justice Marshall, in Finlay v. King's
    Search
  7. from that left by him. We will only quote further an observation of Chief Justice Thompson, of New York, in Jackson v. Sill
    Search
  8. afterwards another description in general terms, the particular description controls the general. Thus, in Goodtitle v. Southern
    Search
  9. the whole farm passed, though it was not all in C.'s occupation. See also Miller v. Travers
    Search
  10. Goodright v. Pears
    Search
  11. a subsequent erroneous addition will not vitiate the description, and we may reject a false demonstration. Doe v. Galloway
    Search
  12. Law v. Hempstead
    Search
  13. Bass v. Mitchell
    Search
  14. Peck v. Mallams
    Search
  15. Doane v. Wilcutt
    Search
  16. Jones v. Robinson
    Search
  17. ambiguity, there no intrinsic evidence can be received. The following cases support this proposition. In Miller v. Travers
    Search
  18. inadmissible to show that the testator intended to devise property which had been omitted by mistake. So, in Box v. Barrett
    Search
  19. In Jackson v. Sill
    Search
  20. In Turker v. Seaman's
    Search
  21. Doe v. Oxenden
    Search
  22. Smith v. Maitland
    Search
  23. Chambers v. Minchin
    Search
  24. Doe v. Westlake
    Search
  25. Newburgh v. Newburgh
    Search
  26. Clementson v. Gandy
    Search
  27. Brown v. Saltonstall
    Search
  28. Mann v. Mann
    Search
  29. Yates v. Cole
    Search
  30. Walston's Lessee v. White
    Search
  31. Cesar v. Chew
    Search
  32. Fitzpatrick v. Fitzpatrick
    Search
  33. Kurtz v. Hibner
    Search
  34. U.S. Supreme Court Patch v. White
    Search
  35. of the Roman Catholic Orphan Asylum v. Emmons
    Search
  36. of Kurtz v. Hibner
    Search
  37. Finlay v. King's
    Search
  38. Jackson v. Sill
    Search
  39. Goodtitle v. Southern
    Search
  40. Miller v. Travers
    Search
  41. Doe v. Galloway
    Search
  42. In Miller v. Travers
    Search
  43. Box v. Barrett
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial