Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Kirby Vs. Tallmadge

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 06, 1896

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

32 entries 4 linked 28 unlinked
Show
  1. Noyes Vs. Hall US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1877
  2. Mclean Vs. Clapp US Supreme Court · Nov 02, 1891
  3. Simmons Creek Coal Co. Vs. Doran US Supreme Court · Jan 04, 1892
  4. Townsend Vs. Little US Supreme Court · Dec 10, 1883
    Relied / Followed
  5. U.S. 379 (1896) U.S. Supreme Court Kirby v. Tallmadge
    Search
  6. U.S. 379 (1896) Kirby v. Tallmadge
    Search
  7. said Lord Mansfield in Blatch v. Archer
    Search
  8. attending this somewhat singular transaction, had gone upon the stand and given their version of the facts. McDonough v. O'Neil
    Search
  9. Commonwealth v. Webster
    Search
  10. The same principle was adopted by this Court in Landes v. Brandt
    Search
  11. The principle had been steadily adhered to in subsequent decisions. Lea v. Polk
    Search
  12. Hughes v. United
    Search
  13. or of a secret agreement between the head of a family and another person. As was said by this Court in Townsend v. Little
    Search
  14. joint occupation by a husband and his lawful wife, neither of them having any title thereto. In the case of Thomas v. Kennedy
    Search
  15. no case notice of more than the occupation of the husband is evident from the subsequent case of Iowa Loan & Trust Co. v. King
    Search
  16. in his mother's house and a part of the time elsewhere, the legal title being in the son. In the case of Lindley v. Martindale
    Search
  17. was not such as the law requires to impart notice. The case is not entirely reconcilable with the last. In Harris v. McIntyre
    Search
  18. notice of her equitable rights. Here too the record title was strictly consistent with the possession. In Rankin v. Coar
    Search
  19. So, in Atwood v. Bearss
    Search
  20. the name of the wife, the proposed purchaser is bound to make some inquiry as to their title. The case of Phelan v. Brady
    Search
  21. U.S. Supreme Court Kirby v. Tallmadge
    Search
  22. Blatch v. Archer
    Search
  23. McDonough v. O'Neil
    Search
  24. Landes v. Brandt
    Search
  25. Lea v. Polk
    Search
  26. of Thomas v. Kennedy
    Search
  27. of Iowa Loan & Trust Co. v. King
    Search
  28. of Lindley v. Martindale
    Search
  29. In Harris v. McIntyre
    Search
  30. In Rankin v. Coar
    Search
  31. Atwood v. Bearss
    Search
  32. of Phelan v. Brady
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial