SHERMAN

v.

ROBERTSON

Citator

Cited By

• Am. Baptist Home Mission Soc. v. Barnett, 26 F.2d 350 (2d Cir. 1928)
  …eal after the statute has forbidden it. See 2 Buling Case Law, 66, § 48, and cases cited above in this paragraph. It is urged that appellant’s motion to amend may be granted on the authority of [*353] Inland & Coasting Co. v. Tolson, 136 U. S. 572, 10 S. Ct. 1063, 34 L. Ed. 539; The Mary B. Curtis, 250 F. 9 (C. C. A. 9); The Seguranca, 250 F. 19 (C. C. A. 5). In the Tolson Case the missing parties, who were allowed to join as appellants, were sureties to an undertaking on appeal. They were not sureties to th…
• Standard Oil Co. of Cal. v. United States, 107 F.2d 402 (9th Cir. 1939)
  …ct which may be established in an action at law as well as in a suit in equity.” 121 U.S. 519, 7 S.Ct. 999, 30 L.Ed. 1039. Wright v. Roseberry, supra, was followed and reaffirmed in Irwin v. San Francisco Savings Union, 136 U.S. 578, 10 S.Ct. 1064, 34 L.Ed. 540, and Tubbs v. Wilhoit, 138 U.S. 134, 11 S.Ct. 279, 34 L.Ed. 887. In Burfenning v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Ry. Co., 163 U.S. [*428] 321, 16 S.Ct. 1018, 41 L.Ed. 175, cited by plaintiff, the question was whether the land involved had o…
• Work v. United States ex rel. O'Donnell, 23 F.2d 136 (D.C. Cir. 1927)
  …ngs under it were held to ho so steeped in fraud as to be totally null and void. Bouldin v. Phelps (C. C.) 30 F. 547. It is also insisted that the courts in San Francisco Sav. Union v. Irwin (C. C.) 28 F. 708, affirmed 136 U. S. 578, 10 S. Ct. 1064, 34 L. Ed. 540, held that the land in question was never a part of the Castro grant and was not included in the deed to the United States. [1] The court below refused to consider these matters of defense interposed by the government, on the theory that, the Secre…

Authorities Cited

• Hartranft v. Oliver, 125 U.S. 525 (U.S. 1888)