Wood v. Davis
11 U.S. 271, 3 L. Ed. 339, 7 Cranch 271, 1812 U.S. LEXIS 392
Opinion
Stated that the opinion of the Court to be, that the verdict and judgment in the case of Susan Davis against Swann, were not conclusive evidence in the present case. There was no privity between Swann and Wood; they were to be considered as perfectly distinct persons.. Wood had a right tp defend his own title, which lie did not derive from Swann.
Judgment reversed-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Wood v. Davis, 11 U.S. 271, 3 L. Ed. 339, 7 Cranch 271, 1812 U.S. LEXIS 392 (1812).
11 U.S. 271 (Wood v. Davis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Gratiot County State Bank v. Johnson Ex Rel. St. Louis Chemical Co.
249 U.S. 246 (Supreme Court, 1919)
Hayward v. Hayward
115 N.E. 966 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1917)
Kapiolani Estate, Ltd. v. Atcherley
238 U.S. 119 (Supreme Court, 1915)
City of Owensboro v. Hope
108 S.W. 873 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1908)
Chamberlain v. Pierson
87 F. 420 (Fourth Circuit, 1898)
Nowak v. Knight
46 N.W. 348 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1890)
Bloodgood v. Grasey
31 Ala. 575 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1858)
Burlen v. Shannon
69 Mass. 387 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1855)
Chamberlain v. Carlisle
26 N.H. 540 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1853)
Brown v. Chaney
1 Ga. 410 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1846)
Allen v. Roundtree
28 S.C.L. 80 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1842)
Inhabitants of Worcester v. Green
19 Mass. 425 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1824)