Bodley and Others v. Taylor

Decision Date01 February 1809
PartiesBODLEY AND OTHERS v. TAYLOR
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Sawyer v. Gray
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington
    • 10 Abril 1913
    ... ... 872; ... Duluth R.R. v. Roy, 173 U.S. 587, 19 Sup.Ct. 549, 43 ... L.Ed. 820; Bodly v. Taylor, 5 Cranch, 191, 3 L.Ed ... 75; Sanford v. Sanford, 139 U.S. 642, 11 Sup.Ct ... 666, 35 L.Ed ... surrendered lands under the act of June 4, 1897, and ... selected others, in the lands so selected, or to render a ... final decree determining the interest of the parties ... ...
  • Sensenderfer v. Smith
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 31 Octubre 1877
    ...1 Phil. Ev. (5 Am. Ed.) 485; U. S. Rev. Stat., §§ 2369 to 2372; Johnson v. Towsley, 13 Wall. 72; Allison v. Hunter, 9 Mo. 749; Bodley v. Taylor, 5 Cranch 191; Brush v. Ware, 15 Pet. 93; 1 Sto. Eq. Jur., §§ 146, 147 and note; 1 Phil. Ev., pp. 567 to 585, 592; Lester's Land Laws, Vol. 1, pp. ......
  • Giberson v. First Nat. Bank of Spring Lake
    • United States
    • New Jersey Court of Chancery
    • 15 Febrero 1927
    ...equity, when it needs no explanation except that justice demands it. Over 100 years ago (1809) Chief Justice Marshall, in Bodley v. Taylor, 5 Cranch, 191 (3 L. Ed. 75), with his usual aptness and lucidity, stated the principle underlying the application of this rule in a court of equity as ......
  • Burtis Ringo, James Elliott, John Collins, John Elliott, James Lawrence, Thomas Watson, Athey Rowe, George Muse, Sen and George Muse, Jun Appellants v. Charles Binns and Elijah Hixon, Stephen Hixon, Noah Hixon, John Hixon, William Hixon and Timothy Hixon, Heirs of Timothy Hixon Deceased
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 1 Enero 1836
    ...him, and the prior equity will prevail. 5 Rand. 475, 476, 488, 489, 504. These principles were recognized by this court in Bodley v. Taylor, 5 Cranch 191; and in Taylor v. Brown, 5 Cranch 234, it was decided that a subsequent entry, even without fraud, must be postponed to a prior—and altho......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT