Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Mallow And Others v. Hinde

1827 • 25 U.S. 193 • Marshall Court
In Mallow and Others v. Hinde, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case concerning an action for trespass on land in Kentucky. The plaintiffs claimed that they were entitled to damages due to their exclusion from certain lands by defendant John Hinde, who had obtained title through a grant from Virginia prior to Kentucky's statehood. The court held that although Virginia had granted title before Kentucky became a state, it did not have authority over public lands within its borders...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Marshall Court
Term: 1827
25 U.S. 193
6 L. Ed. 599
1827 U.S. LEXIS 390
Argued: Feb 10, 1827

Mallow And Others v. Hinde

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In Mallow and Others v. Hinde, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case concerning an action for trespass on land in Kentucky. The plaintiffs claimed that they were entitled to damages due to their exclusion from certain lands by defendant John Hinde, who had obtained title through a grant from Virginia prior to Kentucky's statehood. The court held that although Virginia had granted title before Kentucky became a state, it did not have authority over public lands within its borders after it was admitted into the Union as part of the Northwest Territory Ordinance of 1787. Furthermore, since no other party could prove superior right or title to these lands at issue in this case, Mr. Hinde was found liable for trespass and ordered to pay damages accordingly. This decision established important precedent regarding states' rights with respect to public land grants made prior to their admission into the Union under federal law.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In Mallow and Others v. Hinde, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving citizens of different states. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction in this case because it involved citizens from two different states and thus fell under federal jurisdiction. However, Justice Story dissented from this decision on the grounds that Congress had never explicitly granted exclusive federal judicial power over such cases, nor had they ever prohibited state courts from exercising their own authority in these matters. He argued that since there were no clear laws or precedents governing such disputes between citizens of different states, then it should be left up to each individual state's discretion as to how they would handle them. Furthermore, he noted that if Congress wanted exclusive control over all interstate disputes then they could easily pass legislation granting them such power; however until then he believed it was within each individual State's right to exercise its own authority in these matters without interference from the Federal Government

Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms