Citation network
HarkIn Vs. Brundage
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 20, 1928
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. 36 (1928) U.S. Supreme Court Harkin v. BrundageSearch
-
U.S. 36 (1928) Harkin v. BrundageSearch
-
of a bill, it is the date of the actual possession of the receiver that determines the priority of jurisdiction. Moran v. SturgesSearch
-
Wabash Railroad v. AdelbertSearch
-
Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. LakeSearch
-
Street Railroad Co., 177 U. S. 51 , 177 U. S. 61 , and Adams v. MercantileSearch
-
U. S. 44 character that its filing is the taking of constructive possession of the property. In Palmer v. TexasSearch
-
receivers of a federal court who had taken actual possession under a subsequent bill. In Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. LakeSearch
-
of the bill in foreclosure in the federal court was held to be a constructive possession of the property. In Moran v. SturgesSearch
-
possession of the vessels by its receiver was entitled to retain it without interference. In Empire Trust Co. v. BrooksSearch
-
essentially the same, and that there was no conflict of jurisdiction. See also De La Vergne Refrigerating Machine Co. v. PalmettoSearch
-
the nominal plaintiff was not a judgment creditor, but was a simple non-judgment creditor ( Lion Bonding & S. Co. v. KaratzSearch
-
by an answer of the company admitting the averments of the bill and consenting to a receivership ( Pusey & Jones Co. v. HanessenSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
the receiver, the receivership has been permitted to continue because not seasonably objected to. Pusey & Jones Co. v. HanessenSearch
-
United States v. ButterworthSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Harkin v. BrundageSearch
-
and Adams v. MercantileSearch
-
In Palmer v. TexasSearch
-
In Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. LakeSearch
-
In Moran v. SturgesSearch
-
In Empire Trust Co. v. BrooksSearch
-
De La Vergne Refrigerating Machine Co. v. PalmettoSearch
-
Lion Bonding & S. Co. v. KaratzSearch
-
Pusey & Jones Co. v. HanessenSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial