UNDERHILL
v.
PATTON
UNDERHILL
PATTON
19 L. Ed. 882
Supreme Court of the United States (1870)
Caution
Also reported at: SCDB 1869-203 · 1870 U.S. LEXIS 1261
Cited by 8 cases
Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Nelson delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a writ of error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois.
The suit in ejectment was brought by Mrs. Patton against Underhill , in the court below, to recover possession of the south half of section 22, township 27 north, range 13 west.
Mr. B. C. Ooolc for plaintiff in error. Mr. Conway Robinson for defendant in error. All the questions in this case are disposed of in the cases of Little v. Herndon, 10 Wall. 26, and Long v. Patton, ante, 573.
Judgment affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Home INS. Co. OF NEW York v. Scott, 46 F.2d 10 (6th Cir. 1930)…racter than this have been before the courts to be.interpreted to that result. One citation, still authoritative, which the majority cites, is sufficient for the present discussion. In Bates v. Equitable Insurance Company, 10 Wall. (77 U. S.) 33, 34,19 L. Ed. 882, where a policy contained the usual covenant that, if the property were sold, the insurance ceased unless the insurer consented in writing, it was held that an indorsement that the policy was “payable, in case of loss, to E. C. Bates,” followed by t…1 / 2
-
Bennett v. Cosmopolitan Fire Ins. Co., 50 F.2d 1017 (5th Cir. 1931)…. A.) 138 F. 497, 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 433; Bank v. Hartford (D. C.) 1 F.(2d) 43; Woods v. Ins. Co., 82 Wash. 563, 144 P. 650. Of the first it may be said that, while the majority upon the authority of Bates v. Equitable F. & M. Ins. Co., 10 Wall. 33, 19 L. Ed. 882, did decide that a loss payable clause in favor of the mortgagee was not effective to relieve against the chattel mortgage prohibition, Judge Hook, in a thoroughly well-considered dissenting opinion, pointing out that the Bates Case related to an or…
-
Ohio Hardware Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ne. Ga. Land Co., Inc., 79 F.2d 753 (5th Cir. 1935)…opinions of the Circuit Court of Appeals in the Scott Case (Home Ins. Co. of N. Y. v. Scott), 46 F. (2d) 10, the Supreme Court does not approve or even refer to its holding, but rests its opinion on Bates v. Equitable F. & M. Ins. Co., 10 Wall. 33, 19 L. Ed. 882, a simple loss payable clause as Scott’s was. This, they say, makes it clear that if it was not intended by the Scott Case to disapprove the rule of the Atlas Reduction Case, neither was it intended to approve it. In Bennett v. Cosmopolitan Fire In…
Authorities Cited
- Little v. Herndon, 10 Wall. 26 (U.S. 1869)