Hedrick v. Atchison Co
Decision Date | 24 May 1897 |
Docket Number | No. 154,154 |
Citation | 167 U.S. 673,42 L.Ed. 320,17 S.Ct. 922 |
Parties | HEDRICK v. ATCHISON, T. & S. F. R. CO. et al |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Robert G. Hedrick filed his petition in the circuit court of Adair county, Mo., on October 14, 1890, against the Atchison, Topeka & Santa F e Railroad Company, seeking to recover possession of the portion of the defendant company's right of way, which extended through the W. 1/2 of the S. E. 1/4 of section 28, township 61, range 14, in said county. The defendant company answered, as did also James G. Wilson and John G. Sanders, who, upon their own application, were made parties defendant. The plaintiff subsequently filed replications, and on May 5, 1891, the said court entered the following decree:
'Now at this day this cause coming on to be heard, the parties appear, by their respective attorneys, and answer, 'Ready for trial;' and, a jury being waived, the cause is submitted to the court.
'That on July 25, 1860, said Freeman, at the district land office at Milan, Missouri, where said land was subject to entry, located military county land warrant No. 8,470 (Act Cong. March 3, 1855) upon the west half of the southeast quarter of section 28, township 61 north, range 14 west of the fifth principal meridian (which includes the land in question), and thereupon received a certificate of entry for said west half from the register of said land office, which entry was duly and properly posted on the books and records of said land office by proper notations and entries in the tract books, the plat book, and the monthly abstract book, but by mistake and oversight said land was described in the application as being in range 17 instead of range 14.
'That on September 1, 1885, while defendants Wilson and Sanders were in the actual occupancy and possession of said premises, plaintiff, taking advantage of the mistake made in said application, by his agent, A. C. Widdicombe, who was also his son-in-law, and an expert lawyer, who had full knowledge of the original entries and notations in said books and records of the land office, as well as of the additions, alterations, erasures, and defacements of said books and records then and new existing, made application to enter said tract of land and did thereafter, on the 20th day of July, 1886, secure a patent for said land.
'And the court further finds that the plaintiff is not a purchaser of said land in good faith, without notice of the defendants' estate therein, but he is chargeable with full knowledge of all the rights, equities, and estate of defendants in and to the said premises, and holds the legal title, evidenced by said patent, as trustee for the defendant railroad company's lessor, the Chicago, Santa F e & California Railway Company, and that plaintiff is not entitled to recover in this action.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cosmos Exploration Co. v. Gray Eagle Oil Co.
... ... Hawke, 115 U.S. 392, 6 Sup.Ct. 95, 29 ... L.Ed. 423; Davis v. Wiebbold, 139 U.S. 507, 528, 11 ... Sup.Ct. 628, 35 L.Ed. 238; Hedrick v. Railroad Co., ... 167 U.S. 673, 679, 17 Sup.Ct. 922, 42 L.Ed. 320. The ... commissioner of the general land office has authority to make ... ...
-
Carstensen v. Brown
... ... a patent in a particular lot or tract, is to be regarded as ... the equitable owner thereof." ... To the ... same effect see Hedrick v. R. Co., 167 U.S. 673, 17 ... S.Ct. 922, 42 L.Ed. 320; Widdicombe v. Childers, 124 ... U.S. 400, 8 S.Ct. 517, 31 L.Ed. 427; Hedrick v ... ...
-
Atchison Co v. Matthews
...the company brought the case here on error. All questions of fact are settled by the decision of the state courts (Hedrick v. Railroad Co., 167 U. S. 673, 677, 17 Sup. Ct. 922, and cases cited in the opinion), and the single matter for our consideration is the constitutionality of this stat......
-
De Lashment v. McClelland
...119, 80 So. 528; Teddlie v. McNeely, 29 So. 247; Wirth v. Branson, 25 L.Ed. 86; Widdescombe v. Childers, 31 L. Ed., 427; Hendricks v. A. T. T. & R. R. Co., 42 L.Ed. 320; Godkin v. Cohn, 25. C. C. A. 557; Stark Starr, 18 L.Ed. 925; LeMarchel v. Teagarden, 152 F. 662; Graham v. Great Fall Wat......