Brudenell v. Vaux
2 U.S. 302, 1 L. Ed. 390, 4 F. Cas. 469, 2 Dall. 302, 1794 U.S. App. LEXIS 25, 1794 U.S. LEXIS 111
Opinion
BRUDENELL et al.
versus
VAUX et al.
Supreme Court of United States.
Present WILSON and PETERS, Justices.
Lewis & Tilghman, for the plaintiff. Ingersoll, Rawle, & Thomas, for the defendant.
THE question in this cause arose upon the act of Assembly for recording Mortgages (1 Vol. Dall. Edit. p. 112) the mortgage of the defendants having been recorded after the expiration of six Lunar, but within six Calendar, months, from the date: And THE COURT, having compared this, with other acts of the Legislature, were of opinion, that by the word "months," Calendar months were intended.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Brudenell v. Vaux, 2 U.S. 302, 1 L. Ed. 390, 4 F. Cas. 469, 2 Dall. 302, 1794 U.S. App. LEXIS 25, 1794 U.S. LEXIS 111 (1794).
2 U.S. 302 (Brudenell v. Vaux) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Guaranty Trust and Safe Deposit Co. v. Green Cove Springs and Melrose Railroad
139 U.S. 137 (Supreme Court, 1891)
Guaranty Trust & Safe Deposit Co. v. Buddington, Wilson & Co.
27 Fla. 215 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1891)
Union Bank of Georgetown v. Forrest
3 D.C. 218 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia, 1827)
Moore v. Houston
3 Serg. & Rawle 169 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1817)
Commonwealth v. Chambre
4 U.S. 124 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1794)
Armstrong v. Carson
2 U.S. 302 (Supreme Court, 1794)