Mitchell v. Mitchell
District Court, E.D. North Carolina
In Equity. On exceptions to master’s report.
1Opinion of the Court
PURNELL, District Judge.
The above-entitled suit in equity was instituted in the District Court and after answer to the bill, replication, reference to a referee and various orders, appears to have been by consent referred to a master. Said order of reference is missing from the files.
This is one of the class of cases, out of the general rule, where consent confers jurisdiction under the statue. Bardes v. Bank, 178 U. S. 524, 20 Sup. Ct. 1000, 44 L. Ed. 1175. And jurisdiction thus acquired is retained to the end of the controversy. And questions touching the jurisdiction seem to have been…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Bardes v. Hawarden BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Glenny v. LangdonSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Etheridge v. SperrySupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Robinson v. ElliottSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- In re GarcewichCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1902
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Cohen v. ChambersCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1910
- In re Patterson-MacDonald Shipbuilding Co.District Court, W.D. Washington · 1922
- Lynn v. Darke (In Re Darke)United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan · 1982
- Kronstadt v. Citizens & Southern Nat. BankCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1935
- IH KENT COMPANY v. MillerNevada Supreme Court · 1961
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.