Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-04-1910
Frellsen & Co. v. Crandell - 217 U.S. 71 (1910) U.S. Supreme Court Frellsen & Co. v. Crandell, 217 U.S. 71 (1910) Frellsen & Co. v. Crandell No. 129 Argued March 7, 8, 1910 Decided April 4, 1910 217 U.S. 71 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA Syllabus Whether a patent is wrongfully issued or can be set aside is a matter to be settled between the state and the patentee, but no individual is authorized to act for the state. Even if the state could set aside a patent for having been issued on illegal or inadequate consideration, the matter is between it and the patentee, and, until set aside, one tendering the statutory price does not thereby become entitled to receive such land from the state, nor does the tender create a contract with the state within the protection of the contract clause of the federal Constitution. Where the state court so holds, public land of a state, as is the case of public land of the United States, held under patent or certificate o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-04-1910
Los Angeles Farming & Milling Co. v. Los Angeles - 217 U.S. 217 (1910) U.S. Supreme Court Los Angeles Farming & Milling Co. v. Los Angeles, 217 U.S. 217 (1910) Los Angeles Farming & Milling Company v. Los Angeles No. 137 Argued March 10, 11, 1910 Decided April 4, 1910 217 U.S. 217 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Syllabus In this case, both parties claim under Spanish or Mexican titles, confirmed by proceedings under the Act of March 3, 1851, c. 41, 9 Stat. 631. The federal rights alleged by plaintiff in error to have been violated by the decision of the state court, so far as concerns this act, relate to the extent of the right and ownership of the parties in the use of the Los Angeles River. Plaintiff in error contended that, by its grant, it became the owner of riparian rights without limitations by any right of the City of Los Angeles to use the water of the river, and that the city, by failing to present its claim for the use of such water to the c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Oct-17-1910
United States v. Chicago, M. & St.P. Ry. Co. - 218 U.S. 233 (1910) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Chicago, M. & St.P. Ry. Co., 218 U.S. 233 (1910) United States v. Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Company No. 11 Argued April 26, 27, 1910 Decided October 17, 1910 218 U.S. 233 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Syllabus The grant made by the Act of May 1, 1864, c. 84, 13 Stat. 72, was one in praesenti. Where a railway land grant is one in praesenti, the beneficiary is entitled to all the lands granted within place limits which had not been appropriated or reserved by the United States for any purpose, or to which a homestead or preemption right had not attached, prior to the definite location of the road proposed to be aided. A claim by a state that it is entitled to lands as swamp or overflowed under the Swamp Land Act of September 28, 1850, c. 84, 9 Stat. 519, is not an appropriation or reservation if the land is not in fact sw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Nov-14-1910
Richardson v. Ainsa - 218 U.S. 289 (1910) U.S. Supreme Court Richardson v. Ainsa, 218 U.S. 289 (1910) Richardson v. Ainsa No. 28 Argued November 2, 1910 Decided November 14, 1910 218 U.S. 289 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF ARIZONA Syllabus Notwithstanding the contention of appellant in this case, the decision of this Court in Ainsa v. New Mexico & Arizona R. Co., No. 2, 175 U. S. 91 , that the District Court of Arizona had jurisdiction of an action to quiet title brought by a grantee of the Mexican government of land in the territory included in the Gadsden Purchase, did not proceed upon a mistake in fact and is not inconsistent with the reasoning of the decision of Ainsa v. New Mexico & Arizona R. Co., No. 1, 175 U. S. 76 . Under the Gadsden Purchase Treaty with Mexico of December 30, 1853, 10 Stat. 1031, the good faith of the United States was pledged to respect Mexican titles, and one whose title was absolutely perfected prior to the treaty wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Feb-21-1910
Maryland v. West Virginia - 217 U.S. 1 (1910) U.S. Supreme Court Maryland v. West Virginia, 217 U.S. 1 (1910) Maryland v. West Virginia No. 1, Original Argued November 2, 3, 4, 1909 Decided February 21, 1910 217 U.S. 1 I N EQUITY Syllabus The record in this case sustains the proposition that, for many years, the people of Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia, have accepted as the boundary between Maryland and West Virginia the line known as the Deakins line, and have consistently adhered to the Fairfax Stone as the starting point of such line, and that none of the steps taken to delimit the boundary since such line was run in 1788 have been effectual, or such as to disturb the continued possession of people claiming rights up to such Deakins line on the Virginia and Vest Virginia side. Whether long continued possession by a territory has ripened into sovereignty thereover which should be recognized by other states depends upon the facts in individual cases as they arise. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-31-1910
King v. Virginia - 216 U.S. 92 (1910) U.S. Supreme Court King v. Virginia, 216 U.S. 92 (1910) King v. Virginia Nos. 445, 446, 447 Argued December 14, 15, 16, 1909 Decided January 31, 1910 216 U.S. 92 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA Syllabus When this Court has determined the constitutionality of a state statute, that question is not open, and cannot be made the basis of jurisdiction for a writ of error, and so held as to the statute of West Virginia involved in this case and sustained as constitutional in King v. Mullins, 171 U. S. 404 . On writ of error, this Court cannot deal with facts, and whether the land involved is within or without certain boundaries is for the state court to determine. The construction and effect of, and rights acquired by, a decree of the state court are matters of state procedure. Nothing in the federal Constitution prevents a state court from modifying a decree while the case remains in the court; nor is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Feb-21-1910
Ballinger v. Frost - 216 U.S. 240 (1910) U.S. Supreme Court Ballinger v. Frost, 216 U.S. 240 (1910) Ballinger v. Frost No. 54 Argued December 8, 1909 Decided February 21, 1910 216 U.S. 240 ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus The power of supervision and correction vested in the Secretary of the Interior over Indian allotments is not unlimited and arbitrary; it cannot be exercised to deprive any person of land the title to which has lawfully vested. However reluctant the courts may be to interfere with the executive department, they must prevent attempted deprivation of lawfully acquired property, and it is their duty to see that rights which have become vested pursuant to legislation of Congress are not disturbed by any action of an executive officer. Page 216 U. S. 241 The head of a department of the government is bound by the provisions of congressional legislation, which he cannot violate, however laudable may be his motives. After all...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Mar-03-1910
Butte & Superior Co. v. Clark-Montana Co. - 249 U.S. 12 (1910) U.S. Supreme Court Butte & Superior Co. v. Clark-Montana Co., 249 U.S. 12 (1919) Butte & Superior Copper Company v. Clark-Montana Realty Company No. 598 Argued January lo, 13, 1919 Decided March 3, 1910 249 U.S. 12 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Syllabus In a suit brought in the district court to determine extralateral rights between patented mining claims, the complaint averred that the construction and application of 2322-2332 of the Revised Statutes were involved, set up the discovery, location, and patent of plaintiffs' claim, and, to meet a defect of the location notice under the state law, averred actual, open, exclusive, and uninterrupted possession and working of the plaintiffs' claim for more than five Page 249 U. S. 13 years from the date of discovery, the limitation period provided by 2332. Held that the latter allegations were part of plaintiffs' case, and invol...
Tag this Judgment!