Logan v. Patrick
Cases that cite this one
14 later published cases cite this decision.
- Hadden v. Rumsey Products, Inc. (District Court, W.D. New York 1951)
- United States v. Hartford-Empire Co. (United States District Court for the District of Delaware 1947)
- Higgins v. California Prune & Apricot Growers, Inc. (2d Cir. 1922)
- Brun v. Mann (8th Cir. 1906)
- Campbell v. Golden Cycle Min. Co. (8th Cir. 1905)
- Leigh v. Kewanee Mfg. Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois 1904)
- Krippendorf v. Hyde (Supreme Court of the United States 1884)
- Cortes Co. v. Thannhauser (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York 1881)
- McDonald v. Seligman (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California 1897)
- Maitland v. Gibson (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania 1897)
- Shainwadd v. Davids (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 1895)
- Reinstadler v. Reeves (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri 1887)
- French v. Hay (Supreme Court of the United States 1875)
- Christmas v. Russell (Supreme Court of the United States 1872)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
5 Cranch 288
LOGAN
v.
PATRICK.
February Term, 1809
THIS was a case certified from the circuit court for the 7th circuit and district of Kentucky, in which the judges below differed in opinion upon the following questions:
Whether the complainant, (Logan,) who is a citizen of the state of Kentucky, and is so stated in the pleadings, can maintain this suit, in this court, against the defendant, who is a citizen and inhabitant of the state of Virginia, and is so stated in the pleadings, upon the following case: John Patrick obtained in this court a judgment in ejectment against David Logan, who filed a bill in equity against him to be relieved against the judgment, and to compel a conveyance of the land, and obtained an injunction to stay proceedings on the judgment; but the subpoena was not served in the district of Kentucky. Can this court entertain jurisdiction of the cause? If not, does the defendant's answering the bill, without insisting upon the objection that the process was not served upon him in the district of Kentucky, authorize the court to entertain the cause?
THE COURT, upon the first opening of the case, said there could be no doubt of the jurisdiction of the court below, and ordered it to be certified accordingly.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.