Citation network
Bardon Vs. Land and River Improvement Co.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 28, 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
-
Bardon v. LandSearch
-
River Improvement Co. - 157 U.S. 327 (1895) U.S. Supreme Court Bardon v. LandSearch
-
River Improvement Co., 157 U.S. 327 (1895) Bardon v. LandSearch
-
after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the Court. We remarked in Gormley v. ClarkSearch
-
of a person having the legal title and actual possession, though that legal title depended on a tax deed. Stridde v. SaroniSearch
-
Grimmer v. SumnerSearch
-
Wals v. GrosvenorSearch
-
Grignon v. BlackSearch
-
interpretation of the statues of Wisconsin, by the highest judicial tribunal of that state. As was observed in Lewis v. MonsonSearch
-
the statute runs in his favor, and the original owner is barred is barred from attacking its validity. Geekie v. KirbySearch
-
Gunnison v. HoehneSearch
-
Lawrence v. KenneySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
St. Croix Co. v. RitchieSearch
-
Dupen v. WetherbySearch
-
Lander v. BromleySearch
-
Hotson v. WetherbySearch
-
Oconto Co. v. JerrardSearch
-
is that when the statute has run in favor of the grantee, the deed becomes conclusive to the same extent. See Edgerton v. BirdSearch
-
Wood v. MeyerSearch
-
where the right, as well as the remedy had been extinguished, if complainant's position were as claimed. Leffingwell v. WarrenSearch
-
And to their action as embodied in this resolution, it will not do, as is well said in Hark v. GladwellSearch
-
the other two towns cannot be thus questioned after the years of corporate action shown by the evidence. Austrian v. GuySearch
-
and the others as in the act of 1858. In Lombard v. CulbertsonSearch
-
the name of the county as grantor, but omitting the name of the state as grantor, is void upon its face, Easley v. WhippleSearch
-
Haseltine v. HewittSearch
-
spreading of the deed upon the record, therefore this deed should be held void. But it was distinctly ruled in Hall v. BakerSearch
-
refer at once, if he had any doubt, to volume one of tax deeds, pages 378 and 379. It was said in Oconto Company v. JerrardSearch
-
November 9, 1875. It is admitted that the index as thus reproduced is not open to the objections raised. In Hotson v. WetherbySearch
-
And in that case, and in Lombard v. CulbertsonSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Bardon v. LandSearch
-
Gormley v. ClarkSearch
-
Stridde v. SaroniSearch
-
Lewis v. MonsonSearch
-
Geekie v. KirbySearch
-
See Edgerton v. BirdSearch
-
Hark v. GladwellSearch
-
Austrian v. GuySearch
-
In Lombard v. CulbertsonSearch
-
Easley v. WhippleSearch
-
Hall v. BakerSearch
-
Oconto Company v. JerrardSearch
-
In Hotson v. WetherbySearch
-
Lombard v. CulbertsonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial