Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Sutherland Vs. Mayer

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 24, 1926

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

54 entries 6 linked 48 unlinked
Show
  1. Williams Vs. Paine US Supreme Court · Jan 10, 1897
  2. Birge-forbes Co. Vs. Heye US Supreme Court · Jan 12, 1920
  3. Conrad Vs. Waples US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1877
  4. Hanger Vs. Abbott US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1867
  5. Tate Vs. Norton US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1876
  6. Hicks Vs. Guinness US Supreme Court · Nov 16, 1925
  7. U.S. 272 (1926) U.S. Supreme Court Sutherland v. Mayer
    Search
  8. U.S. 272 (1926) Sutherland v. Mayer
    Search
  9. have done, the loss was an ineluctable consequence of the war, and must be borne by all the partners equally. Clay v. Field
    Search
  10. to Mayer upon the ground that he had a lien upon them for his share of the partnership capital and profits. Mayer v. Garvan
    Search
  11. the decree was entered. The circuit court of appeals, in affirming the decree, adopted the same view. Sub nom. Miller v. Mayer
    Search
  12. of this country and of Germany which would or might be to the advantage of the enemy were absolutely forbidden. Conrad v. Waples
    Search
  13. Briggs Page 271 U. S. 287 v. United
    Search
  14. may give aid or comfort to, or add to the resources of, the enemy. Moreover, as said by this Court in United States v. Lane
    Search
  15. Daimler Co. v. Continental
    Search
  16. Janson v. Driefontein
    Search
  17. and duties are affected by war only so far as they are incompatible with the rights of war. See generally Kershaw v. Kelsey
    Search
  18. Briggs v. United
    Search
  19. money, the right to collect is not destroyed, but only the remedy suspended until the termination of the war. Hanger v. Abbott
    Search
  20. Brown v. United
    Search
  21. New York Life Ins. Co. v. Statham
    Search
  22. Crutcher v. Hord
    Search
  23. Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Hillyard
    Search
  24. Anderson v. Bank
    Search
  25. Buchanan v. Curry
    Search
  26. of the partnership debts and liabilities, divide the proceeds among the partners according to their interests. Clay v. Field
    Search
  27. U. S. 473 . The rule is not different because the dissolution is the result of war. Stevenson & Sons v. Aktiengesellschaft
    Search
  28. Stevenson & Sons v. Aktiengesellschaft
    Search
  29. suit for an accounting among partners, to be determined by the application of equitable principles. Stevenson & Sons v. Aktiengesellschaft
    Search
  30. of the partnership by war is certainly no greater than if it had been dissolved by death or agreement. Buchanan v. Curry
    Search
  31. basis and as of that date. In support of that contention, we are referred to the record in the original case of Mayer v. Garvan
    Search
  32. preserved their original monetary value. Upon the whole, we think the case is fairly ruled in principle by Clay v. Field
    Search
  33. for the fair rental value of the property, including that of the slaves while they were slaves. See also Tate v. Norton
    Search
  34. lawful, rather than at the time of the accounting, finds support by analogy in many decisions. See, for example, Hicks v. Guinness
    Search
  35. Hotels v. Cumming
    Search
  36. Di Ferdinando v. Simon
    Search
  37. Lebeaupin v. Crispin
    Search
  38. the amount when found may be awarded without regard to the fluctuations in the possible date of accounting. Lebeaupin v. Crispin
    Search
  39. performed in England or out of England, on the ground that there should not be varying rules in such cases. Lebeaupin v. Crispin
    Search
  40. period of nonintercourse, interest could not be allowed him upon such share, applying the rule laid down in Brown v. Hiatt
    Search
  41. in lieu of unascertainable profits, to which the rule in the Hiatt case has no application. Stevenson & Sons v. Aktiengesellschaft
    Search
  42. a continuance of authority to make such payments in the absence of evidence of Mayer's assent thereto. Insurance Co. v. Davis
    Search
  43. U. S. 425 , 95 U. S. 429 . Williams v. Paine
    Search
  44. U.S. Supreme Court Sutherland v. Mayer
    Search
  45. Mayer v. Garvan
    Search
  46. Miller v. Mayer
    Search
  47. Kershaw v. Kelsey
    Search
  48. of Mayer v. Garvan
    Search
  49. Hotels v. Cumming
    Search
  50. Brown v. Hiatt
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial