Citation network
Felix Vs. Patrick
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 16, 1892
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. 317 (1892) U.S. Supreme Court Felix v. PatrickSearch
-
U.S. 317 (1892) Felix v. PatrickSearch
-
for Sophia Felix, and as her representative. It was declared by this Court as early as 1810, in the case of Massie v. WattsSearch
-
This case was subsequently cited with approval in Irvine v. MarshallSearch
-
How. 558. So in Brush v. WareSearch
-
of the prior title of the heirs, and was bound to make the conveyance asked from him. To the same effect are Stark v. StarrsSearch
-
Wall. 442, 78 U. S. 458 . And in Widdicombe v. ChildersSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Morris v. JosephSearch
-
thereby created, since she was at liberty, upon discovering it, to affirm the trust and enforce its execution. Bank v. GuttschlickSearch
-
Moses v. MurgatroydSearch
-
Cumberland v. CodringtonSearch
-
Neilson v. BlightSearch
-
Weston v. BarkerSearch
-
delivered without the consent of the grantor is of no more effect to pass title than if it were a forgery. Hibblewhite v. McMorineSearch
-
Davidson v. CooperSearch
-
Burns v. LyndeSearch
-
Everts v. AgnesSearch
-
Tisher v. BeckwithSearch
-
Hadlock v. HadlockSearch
-
Stanley v. ValentineSearch
-
Henry v. CarsonSearch
-
Fitzgerald v. GoffSearch
-
being a quitclaim, conveyed only the interest of the grantor at the date of its delivery, which was nothing. Nichols v. NicholsSearch
-
Lamb v. KammSearch
-
as in this case, or by requiring the assent of the President to their execution of deeds, as in the case of Pickering v. LomaxSearch
-
averred in the bill, and we are left to infer that his concealment was that of mere silence, which is not enough. Wood v. CarpenterSearch
-
Boyd v. BoydSearch
-
Wynne v. CornelisonSearch
-
and deed upon record, in the proper county, shortly after their execution. It was held by this Court in Badger v. BadgerSearch
-
courts, the courts of Nebraska were open to them, as they are to all persons, irrespective of race or color. Swartzel v. RogersSearch
-
Blue Jacket v. JohnsonSearch
-
Wiley v. KeokukSearch
-
Kan. 94. It was said by this Court in Wood v. CarpenterSearch
-
may clearly see whether by ordinary diligence the discovery might not have been before made. See also Stearns v. PageSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Felix v. PatrickSearch
-
of Massie v. WattsSearch
-
Morris v. JosephSearch
-
Bank v. GuttschlickSearch
-
Hibblewhite v. McMorineSearch
-
Nichols v. NicholsSearch
-
of Pickering v. LomaxSearch
-
Wood v. CarpenterSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial