Citation network
Rich Vs. Braxton
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 06, 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
-
U.S. 375 (1895) U.S. Supreme Court Rich v. BraxtonSearch
-
U.S. 375 (1895) Rich v. BraxtonSearch
-
the Suit of Caperton's Heirs v. RichSearch
-
Braxton v. RichSearch
-
the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia said in Overton's Heirs v. DavissonSearch
-
The same principle was announced in Ewing v. BurnetSearch
-
Pet. 41, 36 U. S. 53 , and in Simmons Creek Coal Co. v. DoranSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
the heirs of the former owners were excluded from the beneficent provisions of the Act of November 18, 1873. McClure v. MaitlandSearch
-
This principle was recognized by the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of West Virginia in De Forest v. ThompsonSearch
-
F. 375, 378 (reported in 32 W.Va., p. 1, appendix, under the title of Wakeman v. ThompsonSearch
-
and subsequently by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Read v. DingessSearch
-
F. 21. The full extent of the decision in McClure v. MaitlandSearch
-
is indicated by the subsequent case of Waggoner v. WolfSearch
-
In McClure v. MaitlandSearch
-
the jurisdiction of a court of equity to give the relief sought by the bill, but little need be said. In Simpson v. EdmistonSearch
-
it had been repeatedly held that a court of equity has jurisdiction to set aside an illegal tax deed, citing Forqueran v. DonnallySearch
-
Jones v. DilsSearch
-
W.Va. 759, and Orr v. WileySearch
-
W.Va. 150. And in Danser v. JohnsonSearch
-
of the United States sitting in equity may enforce new rights of an equitable nature created by such laws -- Clark v. SmithSearch
-
the necessity for interference by equity, either for preventing suits or other vexation, the remedy is at law. Hipp v. BabinSearch
-
Smyth v. N.OSearch
-
Boyce's v. GrundySearch
-
U. S. 311 . And the applicability of the rule depends upon the circumstances of each case. Watson v. SutherlandSearch
-
and note 1, page 437, and authorities there cited. And this view is sustained by numerous adjudged cases. Huntington v. CentralSearch
-
Allen v. CitySearch
-
Palmer v. RichSearch
-
Marquette Houghton & Ontonagon Railroad v. MarquetteSearch
-
Milwaukee Iron Co. v. TownSearch
-
Weller v. CitySearch
-
Pixley v. HugginsSearch
-
Tilton v. O.CSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Rich v. BraxtonSearch
-
the Suit of Caperton's Heirs v. RichSearch
-
Overton's Heirs v. DavissonSearch
-
Ewing v. BurnetSearch
-
McClure v. MaitlandSearch
-
De Forest v. ThompsonSearch
-
of Wakeman v. ThompsonSearch
-
Read v. DingessSearch
-
of Waggoner v. WolfSearch
-
In Simpson v. EdmistonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial