Citation network
Morris Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 01, 1899
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
-
Morris v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 174 U.S. 196 (1899) U.S. Supreme Court Morris v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 174 U.S. 196 (1899) Morris v. UnitedSearch
-
along the river west of Seventeenth Street West -- namely, squares 148, 129, 89, 63, 22, and square south of square 12. v. TheSearch
-
it is based has been heretofore adversely decided by this Court in several leading and well considered cases. Martin v. WaddellSearch
-
Den v. JerseySearch
-
second that the law of Maryland, if the sole rule of decision, is to the effect claimed. In the argument in Martin v. WaddellSearch
-
the decision of the Supreme Court of New Jersey in the case of Arnold v. MundySearch
-
The subject is barely adverted to in Shively v. BowlbySearch
-
where, referring to the case of Martin v. WaddellSearch
-
This Court, following, though not resting wholly upon, the decision of the Supreme Court of New Jersey in Arnold v. MundySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
The argument to the contrary, as respects the decisions of the courts of Maryland, depends on the case of Browne v. KennedySearch
-
in the present case, we shall consider in a subsequent part of this opinion. The case of Fairfax's Devisee v. Hunter'sSearch
-
it is not easy to see why it may not be subjected to forfeiture and confiscation. Indeed, it was held in Martin v. WaddellSearch
-
that lands under navigable waters were subject to an action of ejectment. And in the case of Lowndes v. HuntingtonSearch
-
learned counsel for the appellants in support of these contentions, it is sufficient to refer to the case of Smith v. MarylandSearch
-
natural and primary uses are public in their nature, for highways of navigation and commerce. In the case of State v. PacificSearch
-
In the case of Allegheny City v. ReedSearch
-
In Illinois Central Railroad v. IllinoisSearch
-
of Congress to control their navigation so far as may be necessary for the regulation of commerce. In Shively v. BowlbySearch
-
U.S. 152 U. S. 57 . In Mann v. TacomaSearch
-
As against these principles and these decisions, the claimants under the patent cite and rely on the case of Browne v. KennedySearch
-
application here. But we are bound to concede that the Court of Appeals, in the subsequent case of Wilson v. InloesSearch
-
G. & J. 352, has interpreted Browne v. KennedySearch
-
office attached to the land and gave a right of possession when the waters ceased to exist. The decision in Browne v. KennedySearch
-
and applied both during the colonial times and under the state prior to the cession. Thus, in Proprietary v. JenningsSearch
-
it had been illegally obtained, and the case clearly indicates that land under tidewater was not patentable. Smith v. StateSearch
-
T he decree vacating the patent was affirmed. In the footnotes to Baltimore v. McKimSearch
-
Bland 468, the Page 174 U. S. 240 cases of Fowler v. GoodwinSearch
-
and Ritchie v. SampleSearch
-
are referred to. In Fowler v. GoodwinSearch
-
refused to direct a patent to issue because a large part of the land lay in the waters of Bell's Cove. In Ritchie v. SampleSearch
-
the limits of the District of Columbia, since the legislative power has become vested in the United States. Ould v. WashingtonSearch
-
Russell v. AllenSearch
-
This decision was adopted, and the opinion approved, by this Court in the case of Shoemaker v. UnitedSearch
-
to those claiming under it as against the demands of the government. As was said by this Court in Smelting Co. v. KempSearch
-
Similar views were expressed in Doolan v. CarrSearch
-
defendants, they were not, we think, entitled to a decree for a return of the purchase money, or for costs. Piersoll v. ElliottSearch
-
Birmingham v. AndersonSearch
-
Front Street and the Ohio River was set apart as a common for the use and benefit of the town forever. Cincinnati v. WhiteSearch
-
Barclay v. Howell'sSearch
-
New Orleans v. UnitedSearch
-
Rowan's Executors v. PortlandSearch
-
Van Ness v. WashingtonSearch
-
Pet. 284. In Potomac Steamboat Co. v. UpperSearch
-
of Congress and ordinances of the city authorities, and these questions found their way into the courts. Van Ness v. WashingtonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial