Citation network
Embrey Vs. Jemison
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 13, 1889
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. 336 (1889) U.S. Supreme Court Embrey v. JemisonSearch
-
U.S. 336 (1889) Embrey v. JemisonSearch
-
Page 131 U. S. 345 In Irwin v. WilliarSearch
-
Referring to the decision in Roundtree v. SmithSearch
-
the making or execution of the contract of wager itself. He was in every sense particeps criminis. In Bigelow v. BenedictSearch
-
In Story v. SalomonSearch
-
The same principle was announced in Kingsbury v. KirwanSearch
-
N.Y. 612. There are many other authorities to the same effect, but in view of our decision in Irwin v. WilliarSearch
-
with which we are entirely satisfied, it is not necessary to cite them. The plaintiff relies upon Brown v. SpeyersSearch
-
with full knowledge upon his part of all the facts. In such a case, it is argued, the principles announced in Irwin v. WilliarSearch
-
discharge the original cause of action unless, by express or special agreement, it was received as payment. Sheehy v. MandevilleSearch
-
or having directly participated in the marking of it in the name of or on behalf of the of the parties. In Steers v. LashleySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
and had afterwards received the bill in question for that sum, then, according to the principle established in Petrie v. HannaySearch
-
In Amory v. MeryweatherSearch
-
In Fisher v. BridgesSearch
-
Fareira v. GabellSearch
-
Griffiths v. SearsSearch
-
Flagg v. BaldwinSearch
-
Cunningham v. BankSearch
-
Tenney v. FooteSearch
-
Rudolf v. WintersSearch
-
Lowry v. DillmanSearch
-
is of no moment. The defense he makes is not allowed for his sake, but to maintain the policy of the law, Coppell v. HallSearch
-
thereon accrued. This construction of the statute was supposed to be required by the decision in Ficklin's Executor v. CarringtonSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Embrey v. JemisonSearch
-
In Irwin v. WilliarSearch
-
Roundtree v. SmithSearch
-
In Bigelow v. BenedictSearch
-
Kingsbury v. KirwanSearch
-
Brown v. SpeyersSearch
-
In Steers v. LashleySearch
-
Petrie v. HannaySearch
-
Fareira v. GabellSearch
-
Coppell v. HallSearch
-
Ficklin's Executor v. CarringtonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial