Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

De Vaughn Vs. Hutchinson

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 01, 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

63 entries 2 linked 61 unlinked
Show
  1. Mcgoon Vs. Scales US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1869
  2. United States Vs. Crosby US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1812
  3. U.S. 566 (1897) U.S. Supreme Court De Vaughn v. Hutchinson
    Search
  4. U.S. 566 (1897) De Vaughn v. Hutchinson
    Search
  5. the parties lawfully entitled thereto as heirs at law of the said Samuel De Vaughn. To this bill appeared Benjamin D. v. Mitchell
    Search
  6. descent, alienation, and transfer, and for the effect and construction of wills and other conveyances. United States v. Crosby
    Search
  7. Clark v. Graham
    Search
  8. Brine v. Insurance
    Search
  9. Maryland as part of the common law, and has been constantly recognized and enforced by the courts of that state. Horne v. Lyeth
    Search
  10. Ware v. Richardson
    Search
  11. Shreve v. Shreve
    Search
  12. Dickson v. Satterfield
    Search
  13. Holstead v. Hall
    Search
  14. and plain intent of the testator, the former must yield and the latter will prevail. Thus, in the case of Shreve v. Shreve
    Search
  15. it is to them and their heirs forever. Now in the well known case of Luddington v. Kime
    Search
  16. The court in Shreve v. Shreve
    Search
  17. took notice of the fact that the case of Luddington v. Kime
    Search
  18. do not appear to have been adopted by the most recent English decisions, for in Golder v. Cropp
    Search
  19. So, in the still more recent case of Bradley v. Cortwright
    Search
  20. It may be, as stated by Mr. Powell, that subsequent decisions in England have in effect overruled Luddington v. Kime
    Search
  21. of the rule. 4 Kent's Com. 221. It meets an approving reference in the very able opinion of Yeates, J., in Findlay v. Riddle
    Search
  22. But that is more important to the decision of this case is the fact that the doctrine of Luddington v. Kime
    Search
  23. U. S. 573 similar cases has been repeatedly recognized and approved by the courts of this state. Thus, in Horne v. Lyeth
    Search
  24. Again, in Lyles v. Diggs
    Search
  25. H. & J. 373, we find approval of Backhouse v. Wells
    Search
  26. In Chilton v. Henderson
    Search
  27. opinion prepared by Judge Magruder in that case, which Page 165 U. S. 574 is reported in a note to Simpers v. Simpers
    Search
  28. the word 'issue' will in that case be construed to be a word of purchase, which is the doctrine of Luddington v. Kime
    Search
  29. After this repeated and recent recognition by our predecessors of this rule of construction derived from Luddington v. Kime
    Search
  30. We have extracted such large portions of the opinion in this case of Shreve v. Shreve
    Search
  31. in Martha Ann Mitchell, and an estate in fee in the heirs of her body begotten. It is true that the words in Shreve v. Shreve
    Search
  32. were issue lawfully begotten, but the case of Horne v. Lythe
    Search
  33. were similarly construed. In Clark v. Smith
    Search
  34. words, it is made perfectly plain that the testator meant otherwise. Or, to use the language of Lord Eldon in Wright v. Jesson
    Search
  35. been fully recognized and applied in numerous cases. This will clearly appear upon examination of the cases of Horne v. Lyeth
    Search
  36. Chelton v. Henderson
    Search
  37. Fallon v. Harman
    Search
  38. Md. 263, and Clark v. Smith
    Search
  39. The case of Daniel v. Whartenby
    Search
  40. We agree with the court below that the reasoning of the case of Daniel v. Whartenby
    Search
  41. as declaratory only of the law of Delaware, its principles were followed and applied in the subsequent case of Green v. Green
    Search
  42. the construction of a conveyance of lands situated in the District of Columbia, and where the cases of Daniel v. Whartenby
    Search
  43. supra, Page 165 U. S. 578 and Ware v. Richardson
    Search
  44. U.S. Supreme Court De Vaughn v. Hutchinson
    Search
  45. Benjamin D. v. Mitchell
    Search
  46. Horne v. Lyeth
    Search
  47. of Shreve v. Shreve
    Search
  48. of Luddington v. Kime
    Search
  49. Golder v. Cropp
    Search
  50. of Bradley v. Cortwright
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial