Citation network
Lytle Vs. Lansing
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 03, 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
-
U.S. 59 (1893) U.S. Supreme Court Lytle v. LansingSearch
-
U.S. 59 (1892) Lytle v. LansingSearch
-
invested in stock or bonds, and that it was not shown that a majority of the taxpayers had signed the petition. People v. VanSearch
-
the defendant. The judgment in favor of the town was afterwards, and on June 30, 1882, affirmed by this Court. Stewart v. LansingSearch
-
some one through whom he obtained title to them, was a bona fide purchaser for a valuable consideration. Orleans v. PlattSearch
-
a total lack of jurisdiction on the part of the court. When these bonds were before this Court in the case of Stewart v. LansingSearch
-
through whom he derives title was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. Douglas County Commissioners v. BollesSearch
-
does appear that they never took title to themselves. It is significant in this connection that in the suit of Stewart v. LansingSearch
-
overdue coupons, that judgment went for the defendant, and that such judgment was affirmed by this Court in Stewart v. LansingSearch
-
even if it were valid under the statute of frauds. As early as 1823, it was held by this Court in Wormley v. WormleySearch
-
Such is undoubtedly the law. Swayze v. BurkeSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Tourville v. NaishSearch
-
Paul v. FultonSearch
-
Dugan v. VattierSearch
-
Patten v. MooreSearch
-
Blanchard v. TylerSearch
-
Palmer v. WilliamsSearch
-
Jackson v. CadwellSearch
-
negotiable instruments like the bonds in question. We know of no such distinction, however, and in the case of Dresser v. MissouriSearch
-
notes, he was only protected pro tanto, -- that is, to the amount paid before he received notice, citing Weaver v. BardenSearch
-
Crandall v. VickerySearch
-
Allaire v. HartshorneSearch
-
of a suit affecting the title or validity of the securities, it has never been doubted, as was said in Scotland Co. v. HillSearch
-
got their title. Under the circumstances, it was bad faith or willful ignorance, under the rule laid down in Goodman v. SimondsSearch
-
How. 343, and Murray v. LardnerSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Lytle v. LansingSearch
-
People v. VanSearch
-
Court. Stewart v. LansingSearch
-
of Stewart v. LansingSearch
-
Douglas County Commissioners v. BollesSearch
-
Stewart v. LansingSearch
-
of Dresser v. MissouriSearch
-
Weaver v. BardenSearch
-
Scotland Co. v. HillSearch
-
Goodman v. SimondsSearch
-
and Murray v. LardnerSearch
-
Scotland County v. HillSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial