Supreme Court of the United States, 1875

Chaffraix v. Shiff

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided October 15, 1875 · Strong

92 U.S. 214 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. Conway Robinson for the appellant, and Mr. John A. Campbell for the appellee.

Cases that cite this one

126 later published cases cite this decision. The 24 that cite it most often are listed here.

Samuel Eubanks, M.D. v. Wallace Wilkinson (6th Cir. 1991)
PHH Corp. v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (D.C. Cir. 2018)
State v. Markovich (Tex. Crim. App. 2002)
FARM LABOR ORGANIZING COMMITTEE V. ROY COOPER (District Court, M.D. North Carolina 2021)
PHH Corporation v. CFPB (D.C. Cir. 2018)
State of Arizona v. Jerry Charles Holle (Ariz. 2016)
United States v. Calvin Matchett (11th Cir. 2016)
United States v. Sean Michael Grier (3d Cir. 2007)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, — v. BILLIE JEROME ALLEN, — (8th Cir. 2004)
United States v. Calvin Wayne Buckland (9th Cir. 2002)
United States v. Vassilios K. Handakas (2d Cir. 2002)
United States v. Calvin Wayne Buckland (9th Cir. 2002)
City of Las Vegas v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada (Nev. 2002)
United States v. Cotton (4th Cir. 2002)
United States v. Marion Promise, A/K/A Mario,defendant-Appellant (4th Cir. 2001)
Sale Ex Rel. Sale v. Goldman (W. Va. 2000)
Bradley v. State Ex Rel. White (Tex. 1999)
United States v. Espy, Alphonso M. (D.C. Cir. 1998)
Schleifer Ex Rel. Schleifer v. City of Charlottesville (4th Cir. 1998)
State v. Powell (N.M. Ct. App. 1992)
City of Milwaukee v. Wroten (Wis. 1991)
Jackson v. Maley (Okla. 1991)
People v. Ryan (Colo. 1991)
State v. Blowers (Utah 1986)

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 of the Court

Mr. Justice Strong

delivered the opinion of the court.

The court below decreed specific performance of a contract for the purchase of real estate, which expressly stipulated that the purchaser should not be bound to accept the sale if the titles were not good and valid. The title offered was that of a purchaser at a confiscation sale, to whom, after the sale, Surget, the person as whose property the land was confiscated, had released, without warranty. We decided, in Wallach et al. v. Van Riswich, supra, p. 202, that such a title is not a complete and valid one; that it is ineffective beyond the life of Surget; and that his release did not enlarge it. Decree reversed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.