Citation network
Macgreal Vs. Taylor
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 24, 1897
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. 688 (1897) U.S. Supreme Court MacGreal v. TaylorSearch
-
U.S. 688 (1897) MacGreal v. TaylorSearch
-
into the contract a fraud that will affect such right. These propositions, it is said, are sustained by Tucker v. MorelandSearch
-
Pet. 58, 35 U. S. 70 -71, 35 U. S. 73 -74, 35 U. S. 77 , and Sims v. EverhardtSearch
-
U. S. 300 , 102 U. S. 301 , 102 U. S. 312 . Tucker v. MorelandSearch
-
subject to their election, when they become of age, either to affirm or disallow them, and that the doctrine of Zouch v. ParsonsSearch
-
law intends to throw around him to guard him from the effects of his folly, rashness, and misconduct. In Saunderson v. MarrSearch
-
though the application was made to the equity side of the court to set aside a judgment founded on it. So in Conroe v. BirdsallSearch
-
that a different decision would endanger all the rights of infants. A similar doctrine was held by the court in Austin v. PattonSearch
-
Rawle 309, 310. Indeed, the same doctrine is to be found affirmed more than a century and a half ago, in Johnson v. PieSearch
-
In Sims v. EverhardtSearch
-
applicable to infants, and a fraudulent representation of capacity cannot be an equivalent for actual capacity. Brown v. McCluneSearch
-
Keen v. ColemanSearch
-
infancy, the specific thing received has been disposed of, wasted, or consumed, and cannot be returned. In Boyden v. BoydenSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
In Green v. GreenSearch
-
So in Chandler v. SimmonsSearch
-
It is to guard him against the improvidence which is incident to his immaturity that this right is maintained. Gibson v. SoperSearch
-
Boodey v. McKenneySearch
-
contract wholly void if at all, so that it will no longer protect him in the retention of the consideration. Badger v. PhinneySearch
-
Bigelow v. KinneySearch
-
be held as an affirmance of the contract by which he acquired it, and thus deprive him of the right of avoid. Boyden v. BoydenSearch
-
Robbins v. EatonSearch
-
or delivered to the minor in the same modes and with the same chances of loss in the one case as in the other. Dana v. StearnsSearch
-
the disaffirmance of the deed or contract of a minor, that the other party should be placed in statu quo. Tucker v. MorelandSearch
-
Shaw v. BoydSearch
-
Mustard v. Wohlford'sSearch
-
Cresinger v. Welch'sSearch
-
Eureka Co. v. EdwardsSearch
-
Corey v. BurtonSearch
-
Price v. FurmanSearch
-
Bobinson v. WeeksSearch
-
Carpenter v. CarpenterSearch
-
Harvey v. BriggsSearch
-
Railway v. HigginsSearch
-
Reynolds v. McCurrySearch
-
would represent, so far as may be, the value of the improvements put upon the lot with Mrs. Utermehle's money. Lynde v. PageSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court MacGreal v. TaylorSearch
-
and Sims v. EverhardtSearch
-
of Zouch v. ParsonsSearch
-
In Saunderson v. MarrSearch
-
Conroe v. BirdsallSearch
-
Austin v. PattonSearch
-
Johnson v. PieSearch
-
Brown v. McCluneSearch
-
In Boyden v. BoydenSearch
-
Chandler v. SimmonsSearch
-
Gibson v. SoperSearch
-
Badger v. PhinneySearch
-
Boyden v. BoydenSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial