Legal Opinion

Burtis Ringo v. Charles Binns

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided February 10, 1836PublishedCited by 30 opinions

1Opinion of the Court 1

35 U.S. 269

10 Pet. 269

9 L.Ed. 420

BURTIS RINGO, JAMES ELLIOTT, JOHN COLLINS, JOHN

ELLIOTT, JAMES LAWRENCE, THOMAS WATSON, ATHEY ROWE,

GEORGE MUSE, SEN. AND GEORGE MUSE, JUN., APPELLANTS

v.

CHARLES BINNS AND ELIJAH HIXON, STEPHEN HIXON, NOAH

HIXON, JOHN HIXON, WILLIAM HIXON AND TIMOTHY HIXON, HEIRS OF

TIMOTHY HIXON DECEASED.

January Term, 1836

1

ON appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the district of Kentucky.

2

The facts, as stated in the opinion of the court, were the following:

3

The object of this appeal is to reverse the decree of the circuit court, by which the appellants were…

Also in this document: Opinion of the Court · Wayne.

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Bodley v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1809
  2. Taylor & Quarles v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 1809
  3. Ringo v. BinnsSupreme Court of the United States · 1836

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. Beatty v. . Guggenheim Exploration Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1919
  2. Michoud v. GirodSupreme Court of the United States · 1846
  3. Trice v. ComstockCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1903
  4. Dutton v. . WillnerNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
  5. Lind v. WebberNevada Supreme Court · 1913

25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API