The Grand Gulf Railroad and Banking Company, and Alfred Ingraham and George Read, Assignees of Said Company, Intervenors Plaintiffs In Error v. John Marshall
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | TANEY |
| Citation | The Grand Gulf Railroad and Banking Company, and Alfred Ingraham and George Read, Assignees of Said Company, Intervenors Plaintiffs In Error v. John Marshall, 53 U.S. 165, 12 How. 165, 13 L.Ed. 938 (1851) |
| Decision Date | 01 December 1851 |
| Parties | THE GRAND GULF RAILROAD AND BANKING COMPANY, AND ALFRED INGRAHAM AND GEORGE READ, ASSIGNEES OF SAID COMPANY, INTERVENORS, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. JOHN R. MARSHALL |
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
7 cases
-
Magwire v. Tyler
...6 Cranch, 286; Kennedy's Ex'rs v. Hunt's Lessee, 7 How. 586; Keene v. Clark, 10 Pet 291; Coon v. Gallagher, 15 Pet 18; Grand Gulf R.R. Co. v. Marshall, 12 How. 165; Adams v. Preston, 22 How. 488; Medbury v. The State of Ohio, 24 How. 413; Miller v. Nichols, 4 Wheat. 315; Wilson v. The Black......
-
New Orleansco v. Louisiana Sugar Refining Co
...24, 1789, c. 20, § 25, (1 St. 86;) Feb. 5, 1867, c. 28, § 2, (14 St. 386;) Rev. St. § 709; Almonester v. Kenton, 9 How. 1, 9; Railroad Co. v. Marshall, 12 How. 165; Cousin v. Blanc, 19 How. 202; Delmas v. Insurance Co., 14 Wall. 661, 663, 667; Crossley v. New Orleans, 108 U. S. 105, 2 Sup. ......
-
Boehringer v. Yuma County
... ... Mr ... Fred L. Ingraham, for Appellee ... [15 ... or is made to read by construction, is fairly open to denial ... 908, 9 ... S.Ct. 503. See, also, Grand Gulf etc. Co. v ... Marshall, 12 How. 165, 13 ... the territory of Arizona, appears in said ... [140 P. 509] ... laws, the word "state" ... 908, 9 S.Ct. 503; ... Grand Gulf R. & Banking Co. v. Marshall, 12 ... How. 165, 13 L.Ed. 938; ... In ... Albertype Company v. Feist Company, 102 ... Tex. 221, 114 S.W ... ...
-
Crescent Citylanding Co v. Butchers Union Landing Co
...court. Code Pr. La. art. 905; Parks v. Turner, 12 How. 43; Hennen, Dig. 92, No. 3; Cousin v. Blanc's Ex'rs, 19 How. 202; Grand Gulf R. & B. Co. v. Marshall, 12 How. 165; Murdock v. City of Memphis, 20 Wall. 590; Crossley v. City of New Orleans, 108 U. S. 105; S. C. 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 300; Cape......
Get Started for Free