Citation network
Lewis Vs. Barnhart
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 25, 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
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 56 (1892) U.S. Supreme Court Lewis v. BarnhartSearch
-
U.S. 56 (1892) Lewis v. BarnhartSearch
-
shortly before these actions were instituted, and consequently the statute has no application. In case 1,211 Lewis v. BarnhartSearch
-
Curtis, p. 1539. Considering the different objects of sections 8 and 9, the Supreme Court of Illinois, in Dunlap v. DaughertySearch
-
Cofield v. FurrySearch
-
Daret v. MarshallSearch
-
Newland v. MarshSearch
-
title, must be supported by a valid judgment for the taxes, and a proper precept authorizing the sale. Holbrook v. DickinsonSearch
-
Gage v. LightburnSearch
-
Pardridge v. VillageSearch
-
to establish paramount title, apart from possession and payment of taxes for seven successive years. Holloway v. ClarkSearch
-
Dickenson v. BreedenSearch
-
McCagg v. HeacockSearch
-
Stubblefield v. BordersSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Brooks v. BruynSearch
-
Fagan v. RosierSearch
-
Hardin v. GouverneurSearch
-
Railway v. PittsburgSearch
-
Coleman v. BillingsSearch
-
Stumpf v. OsterhageSearch
-
Baldwin v. RatcliffSearch
-
within the meaning of the statute, Rigor v. FryeSearch
-
Hardin v. CrateSearch
-
Robbins v. MooreSearch
-
the benefit of his actual possession under the bond, though the contrary view is asserted on the authority of Snapp v. PeirceSearch
-
Russell v. MandellSearch
-
Schneider v. BotschSearch
-
he is not deemed guilty of laches in failing to assert his rights during the existence of the life estate. Higgins v. CrosbySearch
-
Dugan v. FollettSearch
-
Orthwein v. ThomasSearch
-
Mettler v. MillerSearch
-
Rohn v. HarrisSearch
-
Ill. 525, 531. But the case of Dugan v. FollettSearch
-
of the statute making all deeds void as against subsequent purchasers without notice until filed for record. Kennedy v. NorthupSearch
-
Holbrook v. DickensonSearch
-
does not affect the principle upon which the decision rested. So far as we are aware, the rule announced in Dugan v. FollettSearch
-
has not been disturbed or modified by any subsequent case. On the contrary, it was recognized in Safford v. StubbsSearch
-
Ill. 389, 394. The subsequent cases of Mettler v. PageSearch
-
U. S. 76 Miller, 129 Ill. 630, 642, and Rohn v. HarrisSearch
-
Ill. 525, upon which the plaintiffs confidently rely, are not at all in conflict with Dugan v. FollettSearch
-
In the first of those cases, Mettler v. MillerSearch
-
the life estate of one claiming under a deed conveying the fee is clear from its reference to the case of Safford v. StubbsSearch
-
Nor can Safford v. StubbsSearch
-
So, in Rohn v. HarrisSearch
-
Dean v. LongSearch
-
so as to make that record notice as in cases of deeds or other written instruments concerning real estate. Baldwin v. RatcliffSearch
-
if the will was not properly recorded in Illinois, it was nevertheless evidence as to the title to the lands. Shephard v. CarrielSearch
-
Newman v. WillettsSearch
-
Safford v. StubbsSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial