Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Sexton Vs. Kessler and Co., Ltd.

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 27, 1912

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

27 entries 2 linked 25 unlinked
Show
  1. Humphrey Vs. Tatman US Supreme Court · Apr 17, 1905
  2. Richardson Vs. Shaw US Supreme Court · Apr 06, 1908
    Relied / Followed
  3. Sexton v. Kessler
    Search
  4. Co., Ltd. - 225 U.S. 90 (1912) U.S. Supreme Court Sexton v. Kessler
    Search
  5. Co., Ltd., 225 U.S. 90 (1912) Sexton v. Kessler
    Search
  6. to him after the insolvency of the broker is not necessarily a preference under the bankruptcy law. Richardson v. Shaw
    Search
  7. to be preferred to the claim of the trustee. The bankruptcy law by itself does not avoid the transaction. Thompson v. Fairbanks
    Search
  8. he gets no lien by the mere fact of his appointment. York Mfg. Co. v. Cassell
    Search
  9. Zartman v. First
    Search
  10. is held to have such an interest that a delivery to him by an insolvent broker is not a preference. Richardson v. Shaw
    Search
  11. Markham v. Jaudon
    Search
  12. has been done to give a right of any kind in certain property is a question of more or less. See Union Trust Co. v. Wilson
    Search
  13. and full power to sell and replace or not, as he sees fit, it well may happen that the security fails. Skilton v. Codington
    Search
  14. by the New York courts. The transaction was not void as against creditors, irrespective of attachment, as in Knapp v. Milwaukee
    Search
  15. Niles v. Mathusa
    Search
  16. there is no rule of local or general law that takes from the transaction the effect it was intended to produce. Hurley v. Atchison
    Search
  17. in the absence of any controlling statute to the contrary, such we understand to be what the law should be. Parshall v. Eggert
    Search
  18. N.Y. 18. National Bank of Deposit v. Rogers
    Search
  19. U.S. Supreme Court Sexton v. Kessler
    Search
  20. Thompson v. Fairbanks
    Search
  21. York Mfg. Co. v. Cassell
    Search
  22. See Union Trust Co. v. Wilson
    Search
  23. Skilton v. Codington
    Search
  24. Knapp v. Milwaukee
    Search
  25. Hurley v. Atchison
    Search
  26. Parshall v. Eggert
    Search
  27. National Bank of Deposit v. Rogers
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial