Citation network
Oakes Vs. Lake
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Nov 06, 1933
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. 59 (1933) U.S. Supreme Court Oakes v. LakeSearch
-
U.S. 59 (1933) Oakes v. LakeSearch
-
cannot as of right maintain an action in a state other than that in which he was appointed. The decision in Booth v. ClarkSearch
-
How. 322, to that effect has been uniformly followed by this Court. See, for example, Great Western Mining Co. v. HarrisSearch
-
Sterrett v. SecondSearch
-
are concerned, where title to the property in question has been vested in him by conveyance or statute. In Bernheimer v. ConverseSearch
-
state conferred the right upon the receiver as quasi -assignee. Following that decision, this Court, in Converse v. HamiltonSearch
-
U. S. 243 , 224 U. S. 256 et seq., while reiterating the rule laid down in Booth v. ClarkSearch
-
Hopkins v. LancasterSearch
-
Wilkinson v. CulverSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Jenkins v. PurcellSearch
-
Lyon v. RussellSearch
-
Pond v. CookeSearch
-
Robertson v. StaedSearch
-
Woodhull v. TrustSearch
-
Cagill v. WooldridgeSearch
-
cases might be cited to the same effect. The only decision which we have found definitely to the contrary is Humphreys v. HopkinsSearch
-
ground of comity. With this view, however, we do not agree. It is a matter of right, as this Court has said. Converse v. HamiltonSearch
-
supra. The true rule is stated in Robertson v. StaedSearch
-
Respondent, in support of that contention, relies on Freeman v. HoweSearch
-
who held property seized by him under process issued by a federal court -- this for the reason, as stated in Covell v. HeymanSearch
-
by the statute is for the possession of the property or the value thereof in case a delivery cannot be had. Bates v. CapitalSearch
-
when for any reason a delivery cannot be had is a proposition which finds abundant support in the decisions. Boley v. GriswoldSearch
-
Erreca v. MeyerSearch
-
Claudius v. AguirreSearch
-
De Thomas v. WitherebySearch
-
Donovan v. PageSearch
-
U. S. 66 Aetna Indemnity Co., 10 Cal.App. 723, 727-729, 103 P. 365. In Porter v. DavidsonSearch
-
similar conclusion was reached under a North Carolina statute. That court, after stating the rule laid down in Freeman v. HoweSearch
-
Covell v. HeymanSearch
-
Compare Wise v. JefferisSearch
-
Gilman v. PerkinsSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Oakes v. LakeSearch
-
Booth v. ClarkSearch
-
Great Western Mining Co. v. HarrisSearch
-
In Bernheimer v. ConverseSearch
-
Humphreys v. HopkinsSearch
-
Bates v. CapitalSearch
-
In Porter v. DavidsonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial