Chesbrough v. N. Trust Co., 252 U.S. 83 (1920). · Go Syfert
Search
Chesbrough v. N. Trust Co., 252 U.S. 83 (1920). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2002 · …congress is presumed to have legislated with knowledge of such an established usage of an executive department of the government. ⚠ not in text
157 citation events (21 in the last 25 years) across 44 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Wilson, Victoria (cadc, 2002-05-17)
Treatment trajectory · 1923 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1923 1974 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) United States v. Wilson, Victoria
D.C. Cir. · 2002 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
congress is presumed to have legislated with knowledge of such an established usage of an executive department of the government.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) United States v. Wilson, Victoria
D.C. Cir. · 2002 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
congress is presumed to have legislated with knowledge of such an established usage of an executive department of the government.
discussed Cited "see" Merck & Co., Inc. v. United States
Ct. Intl. Trade · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Nat’l Lead Co. v. United States, 252 U.S. 140 , 145, 40 S.Ct. 237 , 64 L.Ed. 496 (1920); Cohn & Rosenberger, 4 Ct. Cust. at 380 ; cf. Barnhart, 540 U.S. at 26 , 124 S.Ct. 376 (noting that last antecedent rule “not an absolute and can assuredly be overcome by other indicia of meaning”).
cited Cited "see" Peninsular Supply Co. v. CB Day Realty of Fla., Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See National Lead Co. v. United States, 252 U.S. 140 , 147, 40 S.Ct. 237 , 64 L.Ed. 496 (1920); State ex rel.
cited Cited "see" Texas Co. v. Wilkinson
unknown court · 1937 · signal: see · confidence high
See National Lead Co. v. United States, 252 U.S. 140, 146 , 40 S.Ct. 237 , 64 L.Ed. 496 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Abdul Rahim Janko v. Robert M. Gates
D.C. Cir. · 2014 · signal: see also · confidence low
United States v. Wilson, 290 F.3d 347 , 354 (D.C.Cir.2002); see also Nat’l Lead Co. v. United States, 252 U.S. 140 , 147, 40 S.Ct. 237 , 64 L.Ed. 496 (1920) (citing United States v. Bailey, 34 U.S. (9 Pet.) 238, 256 , 9 L.Ed. 113 (1835)) (Story, J.).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Hovey v. Department of Revenue, Liquor Div. (2×)
Mont. · 1983 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., National Lead Co. v. United States, 252 U.S. 140, 146 , 40 S.Ct. 237, 239 , 64 L.Ed. 496 ; United States v. Dakota-Montana Oil Co., 288 U.S. 459 , 466, 53 S.Ct. 435, 438 , 77 L.Ed. 893 ." 380 U.S. at 682 , 85 S.Ct. at 1240 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Abbott, Proctor & Paine v. The United States (2×)
Ct. Cl. · 1965 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See e. g., National Lead Co. v. United States, 252 U.S. 140, 145-147 , 40 S.Ct. 237 , 64 L.Ed. 496 (1920).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Simmons Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
1st Cir. · 1929 · signal: compare · confidence low
A.) 3 F.(2d) 428, 430 ; compare National Lead Co. v. United States, 252 U. S. 140, 146 , 40 S. Ct. 237 , 64 L.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Chesbrough
v.
Northern Trust Company, Executor of Schreiber, Et Al.
206.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 1, 1920.
252 U.S. 83
Mr. Thomas A. E. Weadock for plaintiff in error., Mr. Edward S. Clark, with whom Mr. John C. Weadock was on the brief, for defendants in error.
McReynolds.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published
1 passages pin-cited by 2 cases
Pinpoint authority: bottom 92%
Citer courts: D.C. Circuit (2)

Memorandum opinion under direction of the court, by

Mr. Justice McReynolds.

Each of the three defendants in error instituted a suit against plaintiff in error for damages suffered by reason of his action as a director of the Old Second National Bank, Bay City, Michigan. These were consolidated in the District Court, and thereafter all parties stipulated that, as the facts were approximately the same as in Woodworth v. Chesbrough et al. (No. 137), the[*84] “causes shall in all respects and as to all parties therein, be governed and concluded by the final result in the said case ” and “that if and when final judgment is entered upon the verdict heretofore rendered in said case Number 137, or on any verdict that may hereafter be rendered therein and when proceedings (if any) for the review of said judgment have been concluded or abandoned so that execution may be issued thereon, then judgment shall be forthwith entered and execution issued in the above entitled causes,” for specified amounts.

A judgment against Chesbrough in No. 137 having been affirmed here (244 U. S. 72), the District Court, purporting to enforce the stipulation, entered judgments for defendants in error; and this action was properly approved by the Circuit Court of Appeals. 251 Fed. Rep. 881. See 195 Fed. Rep. 875; 221 Fed. Rep. 912.

Plain provisions of the stipulation were rightly applied. The objection, based upon alleged insufficiency of the amount involved, which plaintiff in error urges to the District Court’s jurisdiction of the cause first instituted by Mrs. Smalley in the state court and thereafter removed upon his petition, is without merit. The action is in tort; alleged damages exceed the prescribed amount; the declaration discloses nothing rendering such a recovery impossible; no bad faith appears. At this stage of the cause it would require very clear error to justify a negation of the trial court’s jurisdiction. Smithers v. Smith, 204 U. S. 632, 642, 643.

The judgment of the court below is

Affirmed.