Sidor som bilder
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

McCue, Packet Company v.
Magwire, Tyler v.
Manhattan Life Insurance Company v. Francisco,
Manufacturing Company v. United States,
Marin v. Lalley,
Mason v. United States,
Massey, Allen v.
Merritt, The,
Michigan Insurance Bank, Eldred v.
Miller v. Joseph et al., .
Missouri, Rea v..
Moore v. Huntington, .
Murray v. The United States (The Merritt),

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

Nock, Philp et al. v.
Nuestra Señora du Regla, T

460 29


[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]


Packet Company v. McCue,
Paul v. Shoemaker,
Philp et al. v. Nock,
Public Works, Board of, v. Columbia College,

508 630 460 521

[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


Railroad Company, Bailey v.

Barnes v.
v. Brown,
v. Fort,
v. Fuller,
Harwood v.
Homestead Company v.
v. Lockwood,
v. Stout,

United States v.
Ray v. Smith,
Rea v. Missouri,
Reed v. Gardner, .
Rochereau, Lasere v.
Rodd v. Heartt,
Ryan v. Koch,


96 294 445 553 560

78 153 357 657 322 411 532 409 437 354 19

[ocr errors][merged small]


[merged small][ocr errors]


[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]
[ocr errors]
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

Savings Institution, Oulton v.
Sawyer v. Hoag, Assignee,
Shoemaker, Smiths v..
Smith, Averill v. .

Ray v.

v. Shoemaker,
Sohn v. Waterson,
Souder, The Emily,
South Carolina, State of, ex relatione v. Stoll,
Stannard, Conway v.
Star of Hope, The,
State v. Stoll,
State Harbor Commissioners, The, Walker v.
Stevenson v. Beggs,
Stitt v. II uidekopers,
Stoll, State v.
Stout, Railroad Company v.
Sweeny v. United States,

109 610 630

82 411 630 596 666 425 398 651 425 648 182 384 125 657 75




The Collector v. Beggs,
" Emily Souder,

Nuestra Señora de Regla,
Star of Hope,

!. 182 . 666


29 651


[ocr errors][ocr errors]

The State Harbor Commissioners, Walker v.
Tyler v. Magwire,

PAGB 648 253

[ocr errors]


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][merged small]
[ocr errors]

United States, Allen v.

v. Boutwell,
Carpenter v.
u Cooke,
Cutner v.
Goodwin v.
v. Henry,
v. Hickey,
v. Isham,
v. Lapene,
Lapeyre v.
Manufacturing Company v.
Mason v.
Murray v. (The Merritt),
v. Railroad Company, .
Sweeny v.

207 604 489 168 517 515 405

9 496 601 191 592

67 582 322 75

[ocr errors]




[ocr errors]


[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]


[merged small][ocr errors]

Valley Railroad, Homestead Company o. .


[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

Walker v. Tbe State Harbor Commissioners,
Warmouth, Ex parte,
Warner v. Joy,
Washington, Alexandria, and Georgetown Railroad Com-

pany v. Brown,
Waterson, Sohn v.
W bartenby, Daniel v.
Williams v. Baker,
Williamson, Knode v.
Wilson v. City Bank,
Wirth, Branson v.

[blocks in formation]





CORDOVA v. Hood.

1. Where a deed of land shows on its face that the consideration is yet “to

be paid,” a second purchaser (that is to say, a purchaser from the vendee), who has notice of the deed, takes the land in those States (of which Texas is one) where the English chancery doctrine of a vendor's lien prevails, subject to the vendor's lien, unless such lien has been in

some way waived. 2. In the case of such a deed it is the duty of the new purchaser to inquire;

and where inquiry is a duty, the party bound to make inquiry is affected

with all the knowledge which he would have got had he inquired. 8. Though it is true that taking a note with a surety from the vendee is

generally evidence of an intention to rely exclusively upon the personal security taken, and therefore, presumptively, is an abandonment or waiver of a lien, yet this raises only a presumption, and as a presumption only it may be rebutted by evidence that such was not the intention

of the parties. 4. The testimony of the vendor received to rebut, and being positive, held

sufficient to do so. 6. Where a vendor already has a lien, evidenced by a note for the payment

of all and every part of the purchase-money so long as it remains un. paid, the lien for any purchase-money afterwards still unpaid is not lost by the fact of his receiving part payrnent of the note before its maturity, taking a new note payable at the same time and in the same way and

place as the original note, and a destruction of such original one. 6. By the laws of Texas (which in a matter connected with real estate was

respected by this court in a suit coming from Texas) an assignment of a note given for the purchase-money of real estate carries the vendor's lien.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for the Western District of Texas, on a decree dismissing a bill filed to enforce a vendor's lien. The case was thus: On the 4th of March, 1859, B. G. Shields, by instrument of




« FöregåendeFortsätt »