Telfener Vs. Russ

Telfener vs Russ

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided Mar-30-1896

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/88121

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/88121
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided On: Mar-30-1896
Case Number: 163 U.S. 100
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Telfener

Respondent

Russ

Excerpt

.....merely copying and adopting the field notes of a previous survey made on the ground, for other parties, by other surveyors, and that such office surveys are not sufficient to enable a purchaser to enforce an executory contract for the sale of public lands under the act of july 14, 1879, as amended march 11, 1881. bacon v. state, 2 tex.civ.app. 692, and cases cited. we adhere to the ruling that error was committed by the circuit court in the manner in which this matter of the necessity of surveys on the ground was left to the jury. we also intimated that it seemed, from the evidence, so far as before us, that the surveys in this instance were not in fact made on the ground, but that was not essential to the decision. some expressions in our former opinion implying that payment was a prerequisite to recovery are complained of. what we intended to say was that, under the pleadings and on plaintiff's contention as it seemed to be pressed, it was necessary that he should show that he had so far complied with the law as to have obtained a vested right to patents as against the state on making the required payments in the required time, and this we thought he had failed to do as to all the tracts, it being borne in mind that each tract must be treated page 163 u. s. 101 as a separate purchase under the statute, as held in bacon v. state, supra, though this contract, as between the parties, was an entire contract for the transfer of rights in the many tracts necessary to make up the agreed number of acres. petition denied.

Full Judgment

Telfener v. Russ - 163 U.S. 100 (1896)
U.S. Supreme Court Telfener v. Russ, 163 U.S. 100 (1896)

Telfener v. Russ

No. 462

Presented May 7, 1896

Denied May 18, 1896

163 U.S. 100

PETITION FOR REHEARING

SYLLABUS

Petitions for rehearing of a case decided March 30, 1896, 162 U. S. 162 U.S. 170, are denied.

Two petitions for rehearing were received.

MR. JUSTICE FIELD delivered the opinion of the Court.

It is firmly established that the State of Texas cannot, in opposition to its wishes, be compelled to accept an office survey constructed by merely copying and adopting the field notes of a previous survey made on the ground, for other parties, by other surveyors, and that such office surveys are not sufficient to enable a purchaser to enforce an executory contract for the sale of public lands under the Act of July 14, 1879, as amended March 11, 1881. Bacon v. State, 2 Tex.Civ.App. 692, and cases cited.

We adhere to the ruling that error was committed by the circuit court in the manner in which this matter of the necessity of surveys on the ground was left to the jury. We also intimated that it seemed, from the evidence, so far as before us, that the surveys in this instance were not in fact made on the ground, but that was not essential to the decision.

Some expressions in our former opinion implying that payment was a prerequisite to recovery are complained of. What we intended to say was that, under the pleadings and on plaintiff's contention as it seemed to be pressed, it was necessary that he should show that he had so far complied with the law as to have obtained a vested right to patents as against the state on making the required payments in the required time, and this we thought he had failed to do as to all the tracts, it being borne in mind that each tract must be treated

Page 163 U. S. 101

as a separate purchase under the statute, as held in Bacon v. State, supra, though this contract, as between the parties, was an entire contract for the transfer of rights in the many tracts necessary to make up the agreed number of acres.

Petition denied.

Same Parties Telfener vs Russ Same Subject Land Acquisition