Court : US Supreme Court
Kirk v. Smith ex dem. Penn - 22 U.S. 241 (1823) U.S. Supreme Court Kirk v. Smith ex dem. Penn, 22 U.S. 9 Wheat. 241 241 (1823) Kirk v. Smith ex dem. Penn 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 241 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Syllabus The act of Pennsylvania of 1779 "for vesting the estates of the late proprietaries of Pennsylvania in this commonwealth" did not confiscate lands of the proprietaries which were within the lines of manors, nor were the same confiscated by the act of 1751 for establishing a land office. The statute of limitations of Pennsylvania of 1705 is inapplicable to an action of ejectment brought to enforce the unpaid purchase money for lands of the proprietaries within the manors for which warrants had issued. Nor is the statute of limitations of 1785 a bar to such an action. This was an ejectment brought by the defendant in error in the court below to recover the possession of certain lands in York County in the State of Pennsylvania. On 4 March, 1681, Charle...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Stark v. Starrs - 73 U.S. 402 (1867) U.S. Supreme Court Stark v. Starrs, 73 U.S. 6 Wall. 402 402 (1867) Stark v. Starrs 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 402 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OREGON Syllabus 1. Under the statute of Oregon which provides that any person in possession of real property may maintain a suit in equity against another who claims an estate or interest therein adverse to him for the purpose of determining such claim, estate, or interest, a bill will not lie on a possession without some right, legal or equitable, first shown. 2. Under the Act of Congress of September 27, 1850, "to create the office of Surveyor General of the Public Lands of Oregon" (the act commonly known as "The Oregon Donation Act," and stated fully in the case), the right of the claimant to a patent became perfected when the certificate of the Surveyor General, and accompanying proofs, were received by the Commissioner of the General Land Office, and he found no valid objection thereto. 3. The Act o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Stuart v. Easton - 170 U.S. 383 (1898) U.S. Supreme Court Stuart v. Easton, 170 U.S. 383 (1892) Stuart v. Easton No. 197 Argued April 12-13, 1898 Decided May 9, 1898 170 U.S. 383 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Syllabus The construction and legal effect of a patent for land is matter for the court, and evidence to aid in that construction is incompetent. The clear intent of the Act of the Province of Pennsylvania of March 11, 1752, authorizing trustees to acquire the land in question, was that while the legal estate in fee in the land should be acquired by the trustees, the beneficial use or equitable estate was to be in the inhabitants of the county, and the provision following the authorization to acquire the land, "and thereon to erect and build a courthouse and prison," was Page 170 U. S. 384 no more than a direction to the trustees as to the use to be made of the land after it had been acquired. The language of the habendum that t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Mille Lac Chippewas - 229 U.S. 498 (1913) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Mille Lac Chippewas, 229 U.S. 498 (1913) United States v. Mille Lac Band of Chippewa Indians No. 736 Argued April 8, 9, 1913 Decided June 9, 1913 229 U.S. 498 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus When Congress passed the Act of January 14, 1889, adjusting relations with the Mille Lac Chippewas, a real controversy was subsisting which was thereby adjusted and composed, and the act is to be construed according to its plain and unambiguous terms. Indians, no less than the United States, are bound by the plain import of the language of an act of Congress and an agreement conferring substantial benefits on them. Under the Act of January 4, 1889, the Mille Lac Chippewas received substantial benefits, in consideration whereof they released their claims to lands in the Red Lake Reservation upon which there were valid preemption and homestead entries, and the United States is not boun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Reynolds - 250 U.S. 104 (1919) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Reynolds, 250 U.S. 104 (1919) United States v. Reynolds No. 591 Argued March 4, 5, 1919 Decided May 19, 1919 250 U.S. 104 CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Syllabus Under the Allotment Act of February 8, 1887, 5, c. 119, 24 Stat. 388, the twenty-five year trust period, with the attendant restriction upon the right of alienation, runs from the date of the trust patent, and not from the date of the approval of the allotment by the Secretary of the Interior, and an attempt to convey, made by an heir of the allottee within that period as extended by the President before its expiration is void. P. 250 U. S. 107 . 252 F. 65 reversed. Page 250 U. S. 105 The case is stated in the opinion. Page 250 U. S. 106 MR. JUSTICE PITNEY delivered the opinion of the court. This was a suit brought by the United States in behalf of Claudius Tyner and ten other persons, hei...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Seymour v. Superintendent - 368 U.S. 351 (1962) U.S. Supreme Court Seymour v. Superintendent, 368 U.S. 351 (1962) Seymour v. Superintendent of Washington State Penitentiary No. 62 Argued December 13, 1961 Decided January 15, 1962 368 U.S. 351 CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON Syllabus Petitioner is imprisoned in the Washington State Penitentiary under a sentence for attempted burglary imposed by a state court. He petitioned the State Supreme Court for habeas corpus, alleging that he is an Indian, that the alleged offense was committed in "Indian country," and that, therefore, exclusive jurisdiction was in the United States under 18 U.S.C. 1153. The Court found that petitioner was a member of the Colville Tribe, but it denied habeas corpus on the ground that the place where the offense was committed was no longer an Indian reservation, though it had been a part of the Colville Indian Reservation. Held: the Colville Indian Reservation is still in existence; the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Santa Fe Pacific R. Co. v. Lane - 244 U.S. 492 (1917) U.S. Supreme Court Santa Fe Pacific R. Co. v. Lane, 244 U.S. 492 (1917) Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Company v. Lane No. 170 Argued April 18, 1917 Decided June 11, 1917 244 U.S. 492 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus In view of the power reserved to add to, alter, amend or repeal the act granting land to the Atlantic and Pacific Railroad Company (July 27, 1866, c. 278, 14 Stat. 292), and of the grantee's failure to comply with the conditions as to construction, Congress, without violating any vested right and consistently with the Fifth Amendment, could lay upon the grantee the cost of surveying the lands granted and require payment thereof as a condition to the issuance of patents, as was in fact done, in respect of said company, by the general provision in the Act of July 31, 1876, c. 246, 19 Stat. 121. The construction placed by the Land Department upon the Act of 1876, supra, to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. v. McGee - 115 U.S. 469 (1885) U.S. Supreme Court St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co. v. McGee, 115 U.S. 469 (1885) St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company v. McGee Argued November 11, 1885 Decided November 23, 1885 115 U.S. 469 I N ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI Syllabus In order that an act of Congress should work a reversion to the United States for condition broken of lands granted by them to a state to aid in internal improvements, the legislation must directly, positively, and with freedom from all doubt or ambiguity manifest the intention of Congress to reassert title and resume possession. No such intention is manifested in the Act of July 28, 1866, 14 Stat. 338, so far as it affects the lands granted to the States of Arkansas and Missouri by the Act of February 9, 1853, 10 Stat. 155, except as to mineral lands. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Roughton v. Knight - 219 U.S. 537 (1911) U.S. Supreme Court Roughton v. Knight, 219 U.S. 537 (1911) Roughton v. Knight No. 711 Submitted January 6, 1911 Decided February 20, 1911 219 U.S. 537 I N ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus As the Forest Reserve provision of the Sundry Civil Act of June 4, 1897, c. 2, 30 Stat. 36, did not prescribe the method which those entitled to avail of its provision should pursue, it was competent for the Secretary of the Interior to adopt the rules and regulations, which this Court has already held to be reasonable and valid, and entitled to respect and obedience. Cosmos Co. v. Gray Eagle Oil Co., 190 U. S. 301 . One not following the rules and regulations adopted by the Land Department for exchange of lands under the Forest Reserve Act and not accompanying his relinquishment deed with a proper selection in lieu of the land relinquished, and whose relinquishment was returned to him by the Department, did not be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Washington v. Glucksberg - 521 U.S. 702 (1997) OCTOBER TERM, 1996 Syllabus WASHINGTON ET AL. v. GLUCKSBERG ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 96-110. Argued January 8, 1997-Decided June 26,1997 It has always been a crime to assist a suicide in the State of Washington. The State's present law makes "[p]romoting a suicide attempt" a felony, and provides: "A person is guilty of [that crime] when he knowingly causes or aids another person to attempt suicide." Respondents, four Washington physicians who occasionally treat terminally ill, suffering patients, declare that they would assist these patients in ending their lives if not for the State's assisted-suicide ban. They, along with three gravely ill plaintiffs who have since died and a nonprofit organization that counsels people considering physician-assisted suicide, filed this suit against petitioners, the State and its Attorney General, seeking a declaration that the ban is, on ...
Tag this Judgment!