Porter v. Banks

Supreme Court

Porter v. Banks

144 U.S. 407, 12 S. Ct. 650, 36 L. Ed. 484, 1892 U.S. LEXIS 2085

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMarch 28, 1892

Docket191

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 144 U.S. 407 (Porter v. Banks) 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

Porter v. Banks, 144 U.S. 407, 12 S. Ct. 650, 36 L. Ed. 484, 1892 U.S. LEXIS 2085 (1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Harlan.

The decree in this case required the specific execution by Porter of a written obligation to J. S. Waterman, similar in. all respects to that of R. W. Waterman, referred to in the foregoing opinion, except that the interest which Porter agreed to convey was (3-100) three one-hundredths- of the same property; also to pay to the original plaintiff, Abbie L. Waterman, the sum of $5373.40 as the profits *408 of the property agreed to be conveyed with the- interest that accrued thereon prior to January 10, 1888. The facts in this case do riot materially differ from those in the above case, and for the reasons stated in the above opinion the decree in this case must also be Reversed.

Mr. George F. Edmunds for appellant. Mr. Charles C. Bonney for appellee.

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

Mr. Justice Harlan.

The decree in this case required the specific execution by Porter of a written obligation to J. S. Waterman, similar in. all respects to that of R. W. Waterman, referred to in the foregoing opinion, except that the interest which Porter agreed to convey was (3-100) three one-hundredths- of the same property; also to pay to the original plaintiff, Abbie L. Waterman, the sum of $5373.40 as the profits *408 of the property agreed to be conveyed with the- interest that accrued thereon prior to January 10, 1888. The facts in this case do riot materially differ from those in the above case, and for the reasons stated in the above opinion the decree in this case must also be Reversed.

Mr. George F. Edmunds for appellant. Mr. Charles C. Bonney for appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 U.S. 407, 12 S. Ct. 650, 36 L. Ed. 484, 1892 U.S. LEXIS 2085, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/porter-v-banks-scotus-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack