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

Philip Hickie And Others, Heirs And Legal Representatives Of James Mather, Deceased, Appellants, Vs. Alexander B. Starke And Others, Heirs And Legal Representatives Of Robert Starke, Deceased, Appellees

1828 • 26 U.S. 94 • Marshall Court
This US Supreme Court case is between Philip Hickie and others, heirs and legal representatives of James Mather, deceased (appellants) versus Alexander B. Starke and others, heirs and legal representatives of Robert Starke, deceased (appellees). The dispute was over a tract of land in the state of Georgia that had been granted to both parties by the state legislature. The appellants argued that they were entitled to exclusive possession because their ancestor had purchased it first from the...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: 1828
26 U.S. 94
7 L. Ed. 67
1828 U.S. LEXIS 392
Argued: Jan 23, 1828

Philip Hickie And Others, Heirs And Legal Representatives Of James Mather, Deceased, Appellants, Vs. Alexander B. Starke And Others, Heirs And Legal Representatives Of Robert Starke, Deceased, Appellees

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

This US Supreme Court case is between Philip Hickie and others, heirs and legal representatives of James Mather, deceased (appellants) versus Alexander B. Starke and others, heirs and legal representatives of Robert Starke, deceased (appellees). The dispute was over a tract of land in the state of Georgia that had been granted to both parties by the state legislature. The appellants argued that they were entitled to exclusive possession because their ancestor had purchased it first from the original grantee; however, the appellees contended that they held title due to an act passed by the legislature which gave them equal rights with respect to ownership. After hearing arguments from both sides, the court ruled in favor of appellee's argument as there was no evidence presented which showed any prior purchase or other right on behalf of appellant's ancestor before passage of said act.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion of this case, Justice Story argued that the appellants had failed to prove their claim. He noted that they had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate a valid title and thus could not be granted relief from the court. Furthermore, he stated that even if they were able to provide such proof, it would still be necessary for them to show an actual possession or occupancy of the land in question prior to Robert Starke's death in order for their claim against his heirs and legal representatives (the appellees) to succeed. In conclusion, Justice Story concluded that since no such proof was presented by either party during trial proceedings, there was insufficient basis on which a judgment could be rendered in favor of either side.

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