Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Cooper Vs. Newell

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 08, 1899

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

41 entries 4 linked 37 unlinked
Show
  1. GalpIn Vs. Page US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1873
  2. Pennoyer Vs. Neff US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1878
  3. Hart Vs. Sansom US Supreme Court · Jan 21, 1884
  4. Arndt Vs. Griggs US Supreme Court · Mar 17, 1890
  5. U.S. 555 (1899) U.S. Supreme Court Cooper v. Newell
    Search
  6. U.S. 555 (1899) Cooper v. Newell
    Search
  7. Newell was never served with citation, process, or otherwise notified of the existence of said suit of Peter McGrael v. Stuart
    Search
  8. in controversy. Attached to plaintiffs' said petition was a certified copy of the record in the case of Peter McGrael v. Stuart
    Search
  9. of Peter McGrael v. said
    Search
  10. the above facts was all objected to by the defendants upon the ground that said judgment in the case of Peter McGrael v. Stuart
    Search
  11. of Peter McGrael v. Stuart
    Search
  12. The judgment of the District Court of Brazoria County, rendered on May 21, 1850, in the case of Peter McGrael v. Stuart
    Search
  13. defendants' demurrer to plaintiffs' petition attacking the validity of said judgment in the case of Peter McGrael v. Stuart
    Search
  14. Court of Brazoria County, Texas (said court being a court of general jurisdiction) in the case of Peter McGrael v. Stuart
    Search
  15. that want of jurisdiction cannot be established aliunde the record in a collateral proceeding. In Thompson v. Whitman
    Search
  16. the court of a state comes under consideration in a court of the United States sitting in the same state. Christmas v. Russell
    Search
  17. Goldey v. Morning
    Search
  18. News, 156 U. S. 518 . In Pennoyer v. Neff
    Search
  19. And in Goldey v. Morning
    Search
  20. or resident, and had not been served or appeared by himself or attorney. Accordingly it was held in Needham v. Thayer
    Search
  21. against a nonresident who was not during the pendency of the proceedings within the jurisdiction of the state. Vilas v. Plattsburgh
    Search
  22. We do not understand any different view to obtain in Texas. In Fowler v. Morrill
    Search
  23. the acceptance of services of process by an attorney is only prima facie evidence of his authority. In Parker v. Spencer
    Search
  24. In Bender v. Damon
    Search
  25. had no authority to represent him. Nor can this judgment be held conclusive on the theory that the suit of McGrael v. Newell
    Search
  26. Hamilton v. Page
    Search
  27. suit, and that suit could only be regarded as a personal action, and coming within the rule laid down in Pennoyer v. Neff
    Search
  28. U. S. 714 . Moreover, the record in McGrael v. Newell
    Search
  29. or that the jurisdiction of the court in fact so attached as to authorize the court to render the judgment. Galpin v. Page
    Search
  30. U.S. Supreme Court Cooper v. Newell
    Search
  31. of Peter McGrael v. Stuart
    Search
  32. of Peter McGrael v. said
    Search
  33. In Thompson v. Whitman
    Search
  34. In Pennoyer v. Neff
    Search
  35. Needham v. Thayer
    Search
  36. Vilas v. Plattsburgh
    Search
  37. Texas. In Fowler v. Morrill
    Search
  38. In Parker v. Spencer
    Search
  39. of McGrael v. Newell
    Search
  40. McGrael v. Newell
    Search
  41. Christmas v. Russell
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial