Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Porter v. Banks, 1892 — 144 U.S. 407 · caselaw · US
General
Porter v. Banks
144 U.S. 40736 L. Ed. 484·Supreme Court of the United States·1892
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Porter v. Banks.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the-United States for the Northern District of California.
No. 191.
Argued with and decided at the same time as No. 190, ante, 394.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice Harlan.]
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 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.