Live Stock Company v. Alva Springer
Decision Date | 07 April 1902 |
Docket Number | No. 124,FRENCH-GLENN,124 |
Citation | 46 L.Ed. 800,185 U.S. 47,22 S.Ct. 563 |
Parties | LIVE STOCK COMPANY, Plff. in Err. , v. ALVA SPRINGER |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This was an action brought, in 1896, in the circuit court of Harney county, state of Oregon, by the French-Glenn Live Stock Company, a corporation of the state of California, against Alva Springer, to recover possession of a certain tract of land situated in said county. The action was tried in May, 1897, and resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of the defendant. The cause was subsequently taken to the supreme court of Oregon, and by that court, on August 11, 1899, the judgment of the circuit court was affirmed; and thereupon a writ of error was allowed by the chief justice of that court, and the cause was brought to this court.
The facts of the case, as developed at the trial, were thus stated by the supreme court:
Messrs. C. E. S. Wood, Lionel R. Webster, and Thomas D. Rambaut for defendant in error.
Statement by Mr. Justice Shiras:
Mr. Charles A. Keigwin for plaintiff in error.
The parties to this contest both claim under titles derived from the United States,—the plaintiff in error under patents granted to the state of Oregon under the swamp-land grant; the defendant in error under the homestead laws.
To support its contention the plaintiff in error put in evidence, at the trial, an official plat of the government survey of township 26 south, range 31 east, of the Willamette meridian, showing the township rendered fractional by abutting upon the meander line along the south side of Malheur lake, which plat appears to have been approved by the Land Department and filed in the local land office on September 17, 1887. The plat shows lots 3 and 4, section 34, and lots 1 and 2, section 35, as bounded on the north by the meander line of Malheur lake; also, a list of selections of land, made by the agent of the state of Oregon, claimed as swamp and overflowed, with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, bearing date September 19 1889; also two patents from the United States for said lots, dated, respectively, March 10, 1890, and October 8, 1891,—said lots containing in the aggregate 158.53 acres; also, two conveyances from the state of Oregon, comprising the said lots, bearing date October 7, 1889, and April 30, 1890, respectively, and certain mesne conveyances of said lots, vesting title in the plaintiff in error in 1894; also, oral evidence, tending to prove that in 1877, and for some years thereafter, Malheur lake was a continuous body of water up to the meander line of that year; that there was a narrow ridge or reef across the west end thereof, some 12 or 15 miles west of the lands in dispute, which separated its waters from those of Harney lake;...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Otley
...Co. v. United States, 245 U.S. 24, 28, 38 S.Ct. 21, 22, 62 L.Ed. 128. "At the time of the survey". French-Glenn Livestock Co. v. Springer, 185 U.S. 47, 54, 22 S.Ct. 563, 565, 46 L. Ed. 800. "At the time of the survey". Chapman & Dewey Lumber Co. v. St. Francis Levee District, 232 U.S. 186, ......
-
State v. Tuesburg Land Co.
...173 3 L. Ed. 694;Niles v. Cedar Point Club, 175 U. S. 300, 20 Sup. Ct. 124, 44 L. Ed. 171, 173;French Glenn Live Stock Co. v. Springer, 185 U. S. 47, 52, 22 Sup. Ct. 563, 46 L. Ed. 800, 802;Kean v. Calumet Canal, etc., Co., 190 U. S. 498, 23 Sup. Ct. 651;46 L. Ed. 1152. It will be seen from......
-
United States v. Lee Wilson & Co.
...if not covered by a lake or a permanent body of water, never vested in the state, as has been shown hereinbefore. In French-Glenn Live Stock Co. v. Springer, supra, it contended that the land was bought in reliance upon the plats and patent, which showed the meander line of the lake; but it......
-
Lattig v. Scott
...fraud, and indeed is entirely founded upon it, the reason for refusing to recognize the lake as a boundary becomes apparent." In the French-Glenn Livestock case, Mr. Justice Shiras in the of the opinion gave substantially the same reasons for confining the patentee to the meander line inste......