Yahoo Malaysia Web Search

Search results

  1. United States 92 U.S. 73 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus 1. Where a "liberal reward" was offered for information leading to the apprehension of a fugitive from justice, and a specific sum for his apprehension, held that a party giving the information which led to the arrest was entitled to the "liberal reward," but not to the specific ...

  2. Shuey v U.S. (1875) On 20 April 1865, the Secretary of War published in the public newspapers and issued a proclamation, announcing that liberal rewards will be paid for any information that leads to the arrest of certain named criminals.

  3. v. UNITED STATES. October Term, 1875. APPEAL from the Court of Claims. Henry B. Ste. Marie filed his petition in the Court of Claims to recover the sum of $15,000, being the balance alleged to be due him of the reward of $25,000 offered by the Secretary of War, on the 20th of April, 1865, for the apprehension of John H. Surratt, one of Booth's ...

  4. As per Shuey v USA (1875) 92 US 73, the offer should be revoked in a similar fashion that it was offered, in this case, the offer was made online. Therefore, when Roger revokes the offer online, this will suffice, but, as Ryan, an offeree, has begun performance, he cannot revoke the offer at this time ( Dahlia v Four Millbank Nominees [1978] Ch ...

  5. Legum case brief on Shuey v. United States. The principle(s) in this case: A general offer can be revoked through the same medium it was made; if the offeree does not see the revocation notice after it was published through the same medium the offer was made, revocation is still valid.

  6. NEW. Transform Your Legal Work With the New Lexis+ AI ™. Using the fastest legal generative AI with conversational search, drafting, summarization, document analysis, and linked hallucination-free legal citations. Explore Lexis+ AI. LexisNexis users sign in here. Click here to login and begin conducting your legal research now.

  7. Screed for a Film and Pillar of Classical Contract Law: Shuey v.United States