Legal Opinion

Warren v. Furstenheim

United States Circuit Court

Decided July 9, 1888PublishedCited by 7 opinions

At Law. On motion to revivo.

1Opinion of the Court

Hammond, .1.

Damages are claimed for alleged misrepresentations by the defendant concerning a firm of merchants to whom the plaintiffs gave credits that have been lost. There was a mistrial before a jury, and afterwards the defendant died. The motion for a revival of the suit is resisted upon the ground that the “cause of action” does not “survive by law” against the defendant’s executor. Rev. St. § 955. If the decision of the question of the right of revival depended upon the determination of the law of Tennessee as to the survival of a cause of action like this as contradistinguished from…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Schreiber v. SharplessSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
  2. Henshaw v. MillerSupreme Court of the United States · 1855
  3. MacKer's Heirs v. ThomasSupreme Court of the United States · 1822
  4. Jones v. VanzandtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Ohio · 1849
  5. Baker v. DansbeeTennessee Supreme Court · 1872

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Havill v. HavillIllinois Supreme Court · 1928
  2. Fix v. Philadelphia Barge Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1934
  3. Plimpton v. Mattakeunk Cabin Colony, Inc.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1934
  4. Chase v. OrmsbyDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1931
  5. Annie J. Jones, by and through her conservatorship, Joyce Sons a/k/a Calisa Joyce Sons v. Life Care Centers of America d/b/a Life Care Center of TullahomaTennessee Supreme Court · 2025

2 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