Citation network
Doolan Vs. Carr
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Nov 21, 1887
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, 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
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 618 (1887) U.S. Supreme Court Doolan v. CarrSearch
-
U.S. 618 (1887) Doolan v. CarrSearch
-
on this subject are so full and decisive that a reference to a few of them is all that is necessary. Polk's Lessee v. WendallSearch
-
New Orleans v. UnitedSearch
-
Leavenworth Railroad v. UnitedSearch
-
Smelting Co. v. KempSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Steel v. SmeltingSearch
-
Kansas Pacific Railway Co. v. DunmeyerSearch
-
Reynolds v. IronSearch
-
Silver Mining Co., 116 U. S. 689 . The case of Polk's Lessee v. WendallSearch
-
the testimony of this point, the circuit court erred. The judgment was therefore reversed. The case of Wilcox v. JacksonSearch
-
the land was not subject to entry. In the opinion of the Supreme Court on this subject, the language used in Elliott v. PeirsolSearch
-
In Stoddard v. ChambersSearch
-
These principles were recognized in and governed the decision of the Court in Easton v. SalisburySearch
-
In Reichart v. FelpsSearch
-
held to be conclusive evidence that the land was so reserved, and defeated the patents of 1838 and 1853. In Best v. PolkSearch
-
of the treaty, and that the patent under which the plaintiff claimed was therefore void, citing also Polk's Lessee v. WendallSearch
-
and Bagnell v. BroderickSearch
-
Pet. 436. In the case of Reynolds v. IronSearch
-
want of power in the officers to issue it, and the facts which show that want of power, we come to the case of Newhall v. SangerSearch
-
Railroad v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 92 U. S. 733 , decided at the same time with Newhall v. SangerSearch
-
In the case of Newhall v. SangerSearch
-
to make such proof, if the person who offers it is in a position to do so, it is only necessary to refer to Simmons v. WagnerSearch
-
have misinterpreted the cases on this subject, that has always been the doctrine of this Court. In Polk's Lessee v. WendallSearch
-
dated April 17, 1800, and the question was whether, as against the second patent the first was good. In Wilcox v. JacksonSearch
-
the mass of public lands, and that its sale by the officers of the government was unauthorized and void. In Stoddard v. ChambersSearch
-
and consequently the location of the certificate was unauthorized, and the patent thereunder invalid. In Easton v. SalisburySearch
-
How. 426, the question arose upon substantially the same facts and was decided in the same way. In Reichart v. FelpsSearch
-
and therefore the patents were inoperative and void. In Best v. PolkSearch
-
and consequently no title could be acquired under it. In Newhall v. SangerSearch
-
to contest the validity of the elder patent to the company. The case of Leavenworth, Lawrence & Galveston Railroad v. UnitedSearch
-
railroad company to quiet its title to lands claimed by the company under a land grant. That of Kansas Pacific Railway v. DunmeyerSearch
-
of a patent from the United States issued on a homestead entry made subsequently. Sherman Page 125 U. S. 636 v. BuickSearch
-
of lots in the townsite of Leadville which had been reserved from sale prior to the location of the claim. In Reynolds v. IronSearch
-
as located on the surface, and extended vertically downwards, if known to exist when the patent was issued. In Wright v. RoseberrySearch
-
that if he who seeks to contest the patent is a volunteer, a mere intruder, he will not be heard. Thus, in Hoofnagle v. AndersonSearch
-
be direct, not collateral, as authority to proceed had been given by the government for that purpose. In Cooper v. RobertsSearch
-
So in Field v. SeaburySearch
-
the grantee. It seems to me clear that the same rule applies plies to questions of illegality. The case of Spencer v. LapsleySearch
-
The last case in this Court to which I will refer in the present connection is Ehrhardt v. HogaboomSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial