Citation network
Wright Vs. Roseberry
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 02, 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. 488 (1887) U.S. Supreme Court Wright v. RoseberrySearch
-
U.S. 488 (1887) Wright v. RoseberrySearch
-
The defendant therefore had judgment. The case being brought to this Court, the judgment was affirmed. Langdeau v. HanesSearch
-
the boundaries more complicated and difficult. Thus, in the case of Leavenworth, Lawrence & Galveston Railroad Company v. UnitedSearch
-
Railroad Company v. BaldwinSearch
-
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company v. KansasSearch
-
Rutherford v. Greene'sSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
within which swamp and overflowed lands existed. It was so held by the Supreme Court of Arkansas in 1859, in Fletcher v. PoolSearch
-
in 1866, in Branch v. MitchellSearch
-
Ark. 431, 444, and in 1874, in Ringo's Executor v. Rotan'sSearch
-
Heirs, 29 Ark. 56. In Fletcher v. PoolSearch
-
In Branch v. MitchellSearch
-
Ark. 444, 445. And in Ringo's Executor v. Rotan'sSearch
-
United States subsequent to that time. The same view was held by the Supreme Court of California in 1858 in Owens v. JacksonSearch
-
Cal. 322, and in Summers v. DickinsonSearch
-
Cal. 554, and in 1864, in Kernan v. PageSearch
-
Griffith, 27 Cal. 87, and in 1882 was assumed to be the correct view in Sacramento Valley Reclamation Co. v. CookSearch
-
The same conclusion was reached in 1861 by the Supreme Court of Iowa in Allison v. HalfacreSearch
-
on the subject. At a later day the Supreme Courts of Missouri and Oregon held the same doctrine. Clarkson v. BuchananSearch
-
Campbell v. WortmanSearch
-
Gaston v. StottSearch
-
Or. 48. The Supreme Court of Illinois in 1863 expressed the same view in Supervisors v. State'sSearch
-
Attorney, 31 Ill. 68, then receded from it in Grantham v. AtkinsSearch
-
Ill. 359, and in 1873, in Thompson v. PrinceSearch
-
Ill. 281, but returned to its first conclusion in 1875 in Keller v. BrickeySearch
-
Ill. 133. The question came before this Court at the December term, 1869, in Railroad Company v. SmithSearch
-
And it was held that the grant in aid of the railroads did not include the swamp and overflowed lands. In French v. FyanSearch
-
therefore was held to be inadmissible. 93 U. S. 93 U.S. 172. In commenting upon the case of Railroad Co. v. SmithSearch
-
This view of the character of the grant was recognized in Rice v. SiouxSearch
-
citing the cases of Railroad Company v. SmithSearch
-
U. S. 169 , and Martin v. MarksSearch
-
term is sometimes used when merely the power of ascertainment or identification is intended. Secretary Schurz, in Kile v. TubbsSearch
-
Sutton v. FassettSearch
-
Richter v. RileySearch
-
citing United States v. HughesSearch
-
Hughes v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 4 Wall. 232, and Moore v. RobbinsSearch
-
prima facie established by the production of the certificates and showing their assignment to him. Richter v. RileySearch
-
that the lands were of the character which by the patents they were represented to be. This was the case in Ehrhardt v. HogaboomSearch
-
is a fact which may be established in an action at law as well as in a suit in equity. As we said in Smelting Co. v. KempSearch
-
Polk's Lessee v. WendallSearch
-
the United States for lands which they had previously granted, reserved for sale, or appropriated are void. Easton v. SalisburySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial