Citation network
Hopkins Vs. Mclure
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 03, 1890
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. 380 (1890) U.S. Supreme Court Hopkins v. McLureSearch
-
U.S. 380 (1890) Hopkins v. McLureSearch
-
opinion that the referee held that both of these debts were preferred claims on the authority of the case of Edwards v. SandersSearch
-
This provision was construed by the constitutional court of South Carolina, in 1822, in the case of Tunno v. HappoldtSearch
-
and intent had terminated, and otherwise left the note as it stood before, still a simple contract. In Kinard v. YoungSearch
-
by the nature of the instrument which the mortgage was given to secure, the court following the decision in Tunno v. HappoldtSearch
-
In 1875, the case of Edwards v. SandersSearch
-
to priority of payment out of the general estate, over specialty and simple contract debts. While the case of Edwards v. SandersSearch
-
claims. Before the case came on to be heard upon exceptions to the report of the referee, the case of Piester v. PiesterSearch
-
exhausted the mortgage ranked according to the grade of the demand secured by it, thus approving the case of Kinard v. YoungSearch
-
and overruling that of Edwards v. SandersSearch
-
The court cited the cases of Tunno v. HappoldtSearch
-
and Kinard v. YoungSearch
-
the doctrine asserted by them was regarded as the settled construction of the act of 1789 until the case of Edwards v. SandersSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
the conclusion in the present case that the mortgages in question came under the operation of the decision in Piester v. PiesterSearch
-
S.C. 559 The point was taken by the appellants in the Supreme Court of South Carolina that the case of Piester v. PiesterSearch
-
at the time of the making of the contract of Hopkins, Dwight & Co., the law, as then declared by the case of Edwards v. SandersSearch
-
be ranked as mortgages, and as such be entitled to priority over specialty debts, and that the decision in Piester v. PiesterSearch
-
the supreme court said that the construction placed on the provisions of the act of 1789 by the decision in Piester v. PiesterSearch
-
was the same as that laid down in Tunno v. HappoldtSearch
-
that the law stood unquestioned down to the time of the decision in Edwards v. SandersSearch
-
that, from what was said in Piester v. PiesterSearch
-
legislature, by the act of 1878, had shown its dissatisfaction with the construction adopted in the case of Edwards v. SandersSearch
-
On the question whether the decision in Piester v. PiesterSearch
-
because it would impair the obligation of a contract or divest rights vested under the law, as declared in Edwards v. SandersSearch
-
years by decisions of both of the courts of final resort in the state, in accordance with the view declared in Piester v. PiesterSearch
-
the ground that the law of South Carolina, under the act of 1789, was such as it had always been held to be in Tunno v. HappoldtSearch
-
Kinard v. YoungSearch
-
and Piester v. PiesterSearch
-
and that the law as so declared had always been the law, and was not varied or changed by anything decided in Edwards v. SandersSearch
-
question is presented by the record. This view is in accordance with the decisions of this Court in Kreiger v. ShelbySearch
-
U. S. 216 , and Hale v. AkersSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Hopkins v. McLureSearch
-
of Edwards v. SandersSearch
-
of Tunno v. HappoldtSearch
-
In Kinard v. YoungSearch
-
Tunno v. HappoldtSearch
-
of Piester v. PiesterSearch
-
of Kinard v. YoungSearch
-
Piester v. PiesterSearch
-
Edwards v. SandersSearch
-
Kreiger v. ShelbySearch
-
and Hale v. AkersSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial