Citation network
Wesley Vs. Eells
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 09, 1900
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. 370 (1900) U.S. Supreme Court Wesley v. EellsSearch
-
U.S. 370 (1900) Wesley v. EellsSearch
-
s cost. In the memorandum of evidence used by stipulation of the parties, reference was made to the case of Tindal v. WesleySearch
-
These extracts indicate the scope of the decision in Tindal v. WesleySearch
-
on the Alexander bond and mortgage. But as will be seen from an examination of the cases of State ex Rel. Shiver v. ComptrollerSearch
-
General, 4 S.C. 185, and Auditor v. TreasurerSearch
-
U. S. 376 was not at all marketable, and could not become such except by successful litigation. In Hennessey v. WoolworthSearch
-
citing Willard v. TayloeSearch
-
Rutland Marble Co. v. RipleySearch
-
Seymour v. DelanceySearch
-
Johns.Ch. 222, 224. To the same effect are McCabe v. MatthewsSearch
-
Rust v. ConradSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Petty v. RobertsSearch
-
Huntington v. RogersSearch
-
equity will not compel specific performance if under all the circumstances it would be inequitable to do so. Starnes v. NewsomSearch
-
Parish v. OldhamSearch
-
Clowes v. HigginsonSearch
-
be compelled to take a title about which doubt may reasonably exist or which may expose him to litigation. Morgan v. MorganSearch
-
Tiffin v. ShawhanSearch
-
and authorities there cited. One of the grounds upon which a decree for specific performance was denied in Hepburn v. AuldSearch
-
the defendant the necessity of bringing a suit to perfect his title. The principle is well illustrated in Jeffries v. JeffriesSearch
-
reasonably be expected to expose the purchaser to controversy to maintain his title or rights incident to it. Richmond v. GraySearch
-
Sturtevant v. JaquesSearch
-
Hayes v. HarmonySearch
-
So, in Lowry v. MuldrowSearch
-
other American cases announce the same rule. The principle is also illustrated in many English cases. In Parker v. TootalSearch
-
it was said to be an established rule of equity not to compel a purchaser to take a doubtful title. In Rose v. CallandSearch
-
were given why the plaintiff could not make a sufficient title, one of which was that the Court of Exchequer, in Nagle v. EdwardsSearch
-
for upon the case in the Court of Exchequer, Nagle v. EdwardsSearch
-
So, in Price v. PageSearch
-
In Pyrke v. WaddinghamSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Wesley v. EellsSearch
-
of Tindal v. WesleySearch
-
Rel. Shiver v. ComptrollerSearch
-
and Auditor v. TreasurerSearch
-
In Hennessey v. WoolworthSearch
-
Starnes v. NewsomSearch
-
Morgan v. MorganSearch
-
Hepburn v. AuldSearch
-
Jeffries v. JeffriesSearch
-
Richmond v. GraySearch
-
Lowry v. MuldrowSearch
-
In Parker v. TootalSearch
-
In Rose v. CallandSearch
-
Nagle v. EdwardsSearch
-
the Court of Exchequer, Nagle v. EdwardsSearch
-
Price v. PageSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial