Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Toltec Ranch Co. Vs. Cook

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Dec 21, 1903

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

29 entries 5 linked 24 unlinked
Show
  1. Campbell Vs. Holt US Supreme Court · Dec 07, 1885
  2. Sharon Vs. Tucker US Supreme Court · Apr 11, 1892
  3. Leffingwell Vs. Warren US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1862
  4. Shelby Vs. Guy US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1826
  5. Deseret Salt Co. Vs. Tarpey US Supreme Court · Dec 21, 1891
  6. U.S. 532 (1903) U.S. Supreme Court Toltec Ranch Co. v. Cook
    Search
  7. U.S. 532 (1903) Toltec Ranch Company v. Cook
    Search
  8. it and all of the remedies which attach to the Page 191 U. S. 538 title. This was expressly ruled in Sharon v. Tucker
    Search
  9. period designated to bar an action for the recovery of land shall of itself constitute a complete title. Leffingwell v. Warren
    Search
  10. See also Shelby v. Guy
    Search
  11. be considered as tantamount to a conveyance. And the Central Pacific Railroad Company had the title. Deseret Salt Co. v. Tarpey
    Search
  12. have been transferred by any of the means which the law provided. It is, however, contended otherwise, and Ankeny v. Clark
    Search
  13. Barden v. Northern
    Search
  14. Pacific R. Co., 154 U. S. 288 , and Nelson v. Northern
    Search
  15. Co., 188 U. S. 108 , are urged to support the contention. A comparison of those cases with Deseret Salt Co. v. Tarpey
    Search
  16. becomes necessary. Deseret Salt Co. v. Tarpey
    Search
  17. The distinction expressed the completeness of the title conveyed. Ankeny v. Clark
    Search
  18. Ankeny contended for the affirmative, and cited Deseret Salt Co. v. Tarpey
    Search
  19. The Court did not find it necessary to decide the issue thus accurately presented. It followed Deseret Salt Co. v. Tarpey
    Search
  20. But Deseret Salt Co. v. Tarpey
    Search
  21. only decided that the land was subject to a lien, and, so burdened, Clark was not compelled to receive it. Barden v. Northern
    Search
  22. was sustained. It is manifest therefore that the case in no way militates with the decision in Deseret Salt Co. v. Tarpey
    Search
  23. by the patent, and not by the granting act. There was therefore nothing decided which detracts from Deseret Salt Co. v. Tarpey
    Search
  24. Nelson v. Northern
    Search
  25. U.S. Supreme Court Toltec Ranch Co. v. Cook
    Search
  26. Toltec Ranch Company v. Cook
    Search
  27. and Ankeny v. Clark
    Search
  28. and Nelson v. Northern
    Search
  29. Ankeny v. Clark
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial