Citation network
Mitchell Vs. Smale
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 11, 1891
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
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 406 (1891) U.S. Supreme Court Mitchell v. SmaleSearch
-
U.S. 406 (1891) Mitchell v. SmaleSearch
-
of the Land Department to grant a patent. Held that the case was removable for the second cause. Hardin v. JordanSearch
-
decision of this case depends upon the same general principles which have just been discussed in the case of Hardin v. JordanSearch
-
been carried on between him and the plaintiff alone so far as Smale was concerned. This was done in the case of Ayers v. WatsonSearch
-
in the character of the action or the principles of procedure therein. True, it was decided in the case of Phelps v. OaksSearch
-
by him. We have held that a defendant cannot make an action several which the plaintiff elects to make joint. Little v. GilesSearch
-
waived, the cause was tried by the court before Judge Gresham in July, 1885, at the same time with the case of Hardin v. JordanSearch
-
to the plaintiff was one of the fractional lots on Wolf Lake surveyed in 1834-35, as mentioned in the case of Hardin v. JordanSearch
-
the survey it was shown as bordering on and bounded by the lake. The difference between this case and that of Hardin v. JordanSearch
-
the strip or tongue of land running into the lake from the north side beyond the meander line (as mentioned in Hardin v. JordanSearch
-
as the Indiana line, and also a copy of the plat of the survey, an outline of which is shown in the report of Hardin v. JordanSearch
-
the lake and the tongue of land projecting into it from the north side, substantially as shown in the report of Hardin v. JordanSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
lake, and shown by the plat referred to therein to bind on the lake, were expressed in the preceding case of Hardin v. JordanSearch
-
line is not a boundary, but that the body of water whose margin is meandered is the true boundary. Railroad Company v. SchurmeirSearch
-
Jefferis v. EastSearch
-
Middleton v. PritchardSearch
-
Canal Trustees v. HavenSearch
-
Houck v. YatesSearch
-
Fuller v. DauphinSearch
-
Boorman v. SunnuchsSearch
-
Page 140 U. S. 415 Marquette Boom Co. v. AdamsSearch
-
Clute v. FisherSearch
-
Ridgway v. LudlowSearch
-
Kraut v. CrawfordSearch
-
Forsyth v. SmaleSearch
-
(Forsyth v. SmaleSearch
-
situated to the east of Wolf Lake, and connected therewith. It is cited and commented on in the opinion in Hardin v. JordanSearch
-
rights incident to such position. The other points raised in the case have been discussed in the opinion in Hardin v. JordanSearch
-
Starr & Curtiss' Stat. 981, sec. 6. The defendant was therefore a necessary party. In Phelps v. OaksSearch
-
Reynolds v. MiningSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Mitchell v. SmaleSearch
-
of Hardin v. JordanSearch
-
of Ayers v. WatsonSearch
-
of Phelps v. OaksSearch
-
Railroad Company v. SchurmeirSearch
-
Marquette Boom Co. v. AdamsSearch
-
Forsyth v. SmaleSearch
-
In Phelps v. OaksSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial