Citation network
Lehigh Mining and Mfg. Co. Vs. Kelly
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Dec 16, 1895
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
-
Lehigh Mining & Mfg. Co. v. KellySearch
-
U.S. 327 (1895) U.S. Supreme Court Lehigh Mining & Mfg. Co. v. KellySearch
-
U.S. 327 (1895) Lehigh Mining and Manufacturing Company v. KellySearch
-
by a court of the United States, justifies a reference to those cases. The first case is that of Maxfield v. LevySearch
-
In Hurst's Lessee v. McNeilSearch
-
In Smith v. KernochenSearch
-
to the plaintiff. The motive imputed could not affect the validity of the conveyance. This was so held in McDonald v. SmalleySearch
-
Hurst v. McNeilSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
The next case is Jones v. LeagueSearch
-
In Barney v. BaltimoreSearch
-
purpose of enabling the court to entertain jurisdiction of the case, it would have accomplished that purpose. McDonald v. SmalleySearch
-
it is without the jurisdiction of a court of the United States, unless the contrary appears from the record, Grace v. AmericanSearch
-
by the act of 1887, amended in 1888, 25 Stat. 434, c. 866. Its scope and effect were determined in Williams v. NottawaSearch
-
U. S. 209 , 104 U. S. 211 , and Morris v. GilmerSearch
-
removal from one state to another with a view only of invoking the jurisdiction of the federal court. In Morris v. GilmerSearch
-
to Alabama almost immediately after giving his deposition. The case comes within the principle announced in Butler v. FarnsworthSearch
-
Other cases in this Court show the object and scope of the above provision in the act of 1875. In Farmington v. PillsburySearch
-
The Court, adopting the language of MR. JUSTICE FIELD in Detroit v. DeanSearch
-
P. 114 U. S. 144 . These principles were reaffirmed in Little v. GilesSearch
-
Nashville Railroad v. LetsonSearch
-
Mississippi Railroad Co. v. WheelerSearch
-
been frequently declared, even if the purpose was to make a case cognizable by the federal court. McDonald v. SmalleySearch
-
the motive imputed could not affect the validity of the conveyance. This was so held in McDonald v. SmalleySearch
-
So, in Barney v. BaltimoreSearch
-
to entertain jurisdiction of the case, it would have accomplished that purpose. McDonald Page 160 U. S. 350 v. SmalleySearch
-
grant by deed was or was not for a valuable consideration. This very question came up in the case of De Laveaga v. WilliamsSearch
-
too uncertain and fanciful to form a basis for a judicial action. As was well said by Mr. Justice Grier, in Marshall v. BaltimoreSearch
-
defendant went to trial on a plea to the merits, he could not afterwards question the truth of such averment. Smith v. KernochenSearch
-
Barney v. BaltimoreSearch
-
legal rights of owners of property are in any wise affected by this law, and it is still true, as was said in Barry v. EdmundsSearch
-
which, in Barry v. EdmundsSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Lehigh Mining & Mfg. Co. v. KellySearch
-
Lehigh Mining and Manufacturing Company v. KellySearch
-
of Maxfield v. LevySearch
-
Jones v. LeagueSearch
-
Grace v. AmericanSearch
-
Williams v. NottawaSearch
-
and Morris v. GilmerSearch
-
In Morris v. GilmerSearch
-
Butler v. FarnsworthSearch
-
In Farmington v. PillsburySearch
-
Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. LetsonSearch
-
In Ohio & Mississippi Railroad Co. v. WheelerSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial