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
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedApril 1, 1794
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 2 U.S. 302 (Brudenell v. Vaux) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
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).

Opinion

2 U.S. 302 (____)
2 Dall. 302

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

Related

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
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, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brudenell-v-vaux-scotus-1794.