Hamilton v. Franklin

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

Hamilton v. Franklin

11 F. Cas. 340, 4 D.C. 729, 4 Cranch 729

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

DecidedMay 15, 1836

StatusPublished

This text of 11 F. Cas. 340 (Hamilton v. Franklin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hamilton v. Franklin, 11 F. Cas. 340, 4 D.C. 729, 4 Cranch 729 (circtddc 1836).

Pincite

Opinion

CRanch, C. J.,

cited the case of Durham & Whitridge v. Ashlon, in this Court, at November term, 1832, and stated that the ground of that opinion was that such a deed was void at common law, as decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Russell v. Hamilton, 1 Cranch, 309; that the Maryland statute did not repeal the law in that respect, but was in affirmance of it; and that the acknowledging and recording of a deed void, at common law, did not make it valid.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

CRanch, C. J.,

cited the case of Durham & Whitridge v. Ashlon, in this Court, at November term, 1832, and stated that the ground of that opinion was that such a deed was void at common law, as decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Russell v. Hamilton, 1 Cranch, 309; that the Maryland statute did not repeal the law in that respect, but was in affirmance of it; and that the acknowledging and recording of a deed void, at common law, did not make it valid.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 F. Cas. 340, 4 D.C. 729, 4 Cranch 729, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamilton-v-franklin-circtddc-1836.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack