HOOD
v.
WALLACE
HOOD
WALLACE
182 U.S. 555
Supreme Court of the United States (1901)
Negative Treatment
Also reported at: 45 L. Ed. 1227 · 21 S. Ct. 885 · 1901 U.S. LEXIS 1242 · SCDB 1900-075
Cited by 15 cases
Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the court.
The pleadings in this case are the same as in Lantry v. Wallace, just decided. The demurrer to the answer and cross-petition of Hood was sustained in an elaborate opinion by Judge Phillips, holding the Circuit Court. 89 Fed. Rep. 11. The judgment in that court was affirmed in the Circuit Court of Appeals. Lantry v. Wallace, 97 Fed. Rep. 865.
For the reasons stated in the opinion just rendered in Laritry’s case, the judgment in this case is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lodge 1858 v. Webb, 580 F.2d 496 (D.C. Cir. 1978)…356, 6 S.Ct. 1064, 30 L.Ed. 220 (1886); Branagan v. Dulaney, 8 Colo. 408, 411, 8 P. 669, 671 (1885) (overruled on ground that statutes not in conflict in Calhoun Gold-Min. Co. v. Ajax Gold-Min. Co., 27 Colo. 1, 59 P. 607 (1899), aff'd, 182 U.S. 499, 21 S.Ct. 885, 45 L.Ed. 1200 (1901)); Albertson v. State, 9 Neb. 429, 439, 2 N.W. 742, 748 (1879); see Stansell v. Fowler, 113 Ga.App. 377, 381, 147 S.E. 2d 793, 796 (1966); Sharer v. Hotel Corp. of America, 144 So. 2d 813, 816-17 (Fla.1962); Jolly v. Atlantic Gr…1 / 2
-
Eagan v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 43 F.2d 881 (5th Cir. 1930)…d in the acts are not to be interpreted by local state standards, but are to have a general and uniform interpretation throughout the country. Weiss v. Wiener, 279 U. S. 333, 49 S. Ct. 337, 73 L. Ed. 729; Calhoun Co. v. Ajax Co., 182 U. S. 499, 505, 21 S. Ct. 885, 45 L. Ed. 1200. The Georgia statutes are helpful in determining what is meant by the word “charitable” only in so far as they contribute to- the general understanding throughout the United States. In this connection charitable means directed to or…
-
Williams v. Stone, 25 F.2d 831 (4th Cir. 1928)…rights of creditors accrued, he occupied and was accorded the rights appertaining to that position.” See, also, Salter v. Williams (D. C.) 219 F. 1018; Lantry v. Wallace, 182 U. S. 536, 21 S. Ct. 878, 45 L. Ed. 1218; Hood v. Wallace, 182 U. S. 555, 21 S. Ct. 885, 45 L. Ed. 1227. [3] The case of Keyser v. Hitz, 133 U. S. 138, 10 S. Ct. 290, 33 L. Ed. 531, relied on by counsel for defendant, does not in any wise sustain defendant’s contention. In that case it is held that if, the stockholder became aware of…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence