Adams Co v. Burlington
Decision Date | 03 November 1884 |
Citation | 5 S.Ct. 77,28 L.Ed. 678,112 U.S. 123 |
Parties | ADAMS CO. v. BURLINGTON & M. R. R. Co. and others. 1 |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
E. M. Davis and Geo. G. Wright, for plaintiff in error.
S. Shellabarger, J. M. Wilson, and T. M. Stuart, for defendant in error.
This is a suit in equity brought by Adams county, Iowa, the plaintiff in error, on the twenty-third of December, 1869, against the Burlington & Missouri River Railroad Company, in a state court of Iowa, to quiet its title to 66 40-acre lots of land. The county asserts title under the swamp-land act of September 28, 1850, (9 St. 519, c. 84,) and the railroad company under the Iowa land-grant act of May 15, 1856, (11 St. 9, c. 28.) The company, in its answer, denied the title of the county, on the ground that the lands were not swamp lands within the meaning of the swamp-land act, and took issue on every material averment of fact in the bill to support a title under that act. It then set up its own title under the land-grant act. The petition averred a selection of the lands in dispute, as swamp lands, by Walter Trippett, county surveyor of the county, under the authority of the secretary of the interior and commissioner of the general land-office, as well as the governor and legislature of Iowa, and the report thereof, in due form, to the commissioner of the general land-office, on the thirtieth of September, 1854. On account of this selection and report, it was claimed that the right of the state to a patent for the lands selected was perfected by the act of March 3, 1857, c. 117, (11 St. 251.) The railroad company filed an answer in the nature of a cross-bill asking for affirmative relief on the following facts:
The prayer was 'that plaintiff's bill may be dismissed, and that defendant have and obtain a decree and judgment quieting their title to said lands, and for costs of this case;' and, if the title of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
New Orleansco v. Louisiana Sugar Refining Co
... ... Atwell , 92 U. S. 327; Bank v. Board , 98 U. S. 140; Chouteau v. Gibson , ... Page 30 ... 111 U. S. 200, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 340; Adams Co. v. Railroad Co. , 112 U. S. 123, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 77; Railway v. Guthard , 114 U. S. 133, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 811. In order to come within the ... ...
-
Hale v. Akers
... ... S. 578; Brown v. Atwell, 92 U. S. 327; Bank v. Board of Liquidation, 98 U. S. 140; Chouteau v. Gibson, 111 U. S. 200, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 340; Adams Co. v. Railroad Co., 112 U. S. 123, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 77; Railway Co. v. Guthard, 114 U. S. 133, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 811; Water-Works Co. v. Refining Co., ... ...
-
Kreiger v. Shelby Co
... ... Murdock v. Memphis, 20 Wall. 590, 633; McManus v. O'Sullivan, 91 U. S. 578; Gross v. Mortgage Co., 108 U. S. 481, 487, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 940; Adams Co. v. Railroad, 112 U. S. 123, 129, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 77; Railway v. Guthard, 114 U. S. 133, 137, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 811; Jacks v. Helena, 115 U. S. 288, ... ...
-
Rademaker v. ED Flynn Export Co.
...and judgment entered. Gross v. U. S. Mortgage Co., 108 U. S. 477, 486, 2 S. Ct. 940, 27 L. Ed. 795; Adams County v. Burlington R. R. Co., 112 U. S. 123, 129, 5 S. Ct. 77, 28 L. Ed. 678; Virginian Ry. Co. v. United States (Dec. 13, 1926) 47 S. Ct. 222, 71 L. Ed. ___. In this case, the opinio......