Citation network
Ankeny Vs. Clark
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 27, 1893
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
- Distinguished
-
U.S. 345 (1893) U.S. Supreme Court Ankeny v. ClarkSearch
-
U.S. 345 (1893) Ankeny v. ClarkSearch
-
is now sustained by this Court notwithstanding the decision of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington in Distler v. DabneySearch
-
N.W. 335, construing the code of that state adversely to it. Stutsman County v. WallaceSearch
-
money paid upon a contract of sale which had been rescinded. Smith expresses the doctrine in his note to Cutter v. PowellSearch
-
The learned author sustains his proposition by citing Withers v. ReynoldsSearch
-
Planche v. ColburnSearch
-
Palmer v. TempleSearch
-
Ad. & El. 508. Well considered American cases are to the same effect. Eames v. SavageSearch
-
McCrelish v. ChurchmanSearch
-
Baston v. CliffordSearch
-
Stahelin v. SowleSearch
-
It is, however, contended that under the Code of Washington, a different rule prevails, and the case of Distler v. DabneySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
but it is claimed that, under the doctrine of Stutsman County v. WallaceSearch
-
will be followed by the Supreme Court of the United States. It does indeed appear that in the case of Distler v. DabneySearch
-
cases while the former cases were pending on appeal in this Court. Nor do we understand the case of Stutsman County v. WallaceSearch
-
show that any patent had been granted to the railroad company, and that hence, within the cases of Railway Company v. PrescottSearch
-
Wall. 603, Railway Company v. McShaneSearch
-
Wall. 444, and Northern Pacific Railroad v. TraillSearch
-
a patent had been granted to the railroad company, and to sustain this position, he cited the case of Deseret Salt Co. v. TarpeySearch
-
hence held that the plaintiff was justified in rejecting the defendant's title. In the case of Deseret Salt Co. v. TarpeySearch
-
among the several tracts. The plaintiff's right to refuse to accept was therefore clear. Duke of St. Alban's v. ShoreSearch
-
Patterson v. StewartSearch
-
Williams v. RogersSearch
-
Gillet v. MaynardSearch
-
Guthrie v. PugsleySearch
-
Cook v. DoggettSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Ankeny v. ClarkSearch
-
Distler v. DabneySearch
-
Cutter v. PowellSearch
-
Withers v. ReynoldsSearch
-
Eames v. SavageSearch
-
of Distler v. DabneySearch
-
of Stutsman County v. WallaceSearch
-
of Railway Company v. PrescottSearch
-
and Northern Pacific Railroad v. TraillSearch
-
of Deseret Salt Co. v. TarpeySearch
-
Duke of St. Alban's v. ShoreSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial