Charles Reitler v. William Harris 99
Decision Date | 19 February 1912 |
Citation | 32 S.Ct. 248,56 L.Ed. 497,223 U.S. 437 |
Parties | CHARLES REITLER, Plff. in Err., v. WILLIAM A. HARRIS. No 99 |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. F. Dumont Smith for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Frederick De Courcy Faust, A. C. Dyer, and L. M. Day for defendant in error.
This was an action in a district court of the state of Kansas to recover the possession of a quarter section of land to which the parties were asserting adverse claims under the school-land laws of the state. The plaintiff's claim originated in a contract of purchase with the state, whereby he was required annually to pay interest on the unpaid purchase price at a stipulated rate. He failed for three years to comply with that requirement, and proceedings looking to a forfeiture of his rights under the contract resulted, in 1901, in a notation of forfeiture, as hereinafter explained. The defendant claimed under a like contract, made, in 1902, upon the supposition that all rights under the prior contract had been extinguished. In 1906, while the defendant was in possession and complying with his contract, the plaintiff made payment of the purchase price and interest under his contract, and a patent was issued to him. The action was begun in 1907, when the defendant was still in possession and complying with his contract. The controversy turned upon the validity of the forfeiture proceedings. If they were valid, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover; otherwise he was.
The statute (Laws [Kan.] 1879, chap. 161, § 2) prescribing the mode of forfeiture in force since before the plaintiff's contract was made, reads as follows:
Upon the trial it appeared that, while the plaintiff was in default, as before indicated, the county clerk of the county wherein the land was situate issued a notice to him in conformity with this statute; that the sheriff made a return thereon within the time prescribed, reading: 'Received this notice this 13th day of July, 1901, and served the same by leaving a copy with C. C. Potter, who occupied the within premises, July 17, 1907;' that, although not so stated in his return, the sheriff duly posted the notice in the office...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sampson v. Channell
......78, 32 L.R.A., N.S., 226, Ann.Cas.1912A, 463; Reitler v. Harris, 223 U.S. 437, 441, 442, 32 S.Ct. 248, 56 L.Ed. ...v. Munn, 4 Cir., 1938, 99 F.2d 190, 193; Hagan & Cushing Co. v. Washington Water ......
-
State v. Kelly
...145, 55 L.Ed. 191;Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U.S. 61, 31 S.Ct. 337, 55 L.Ed. 369, Ann.Cas.1912C, 160;Reitler v. Harris, 223 U.S. 437, 32 S.Ct. 248, 56 L.Ed. 497;Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9, 34 S.Ct. 10, 58 L.Ed. 101;McFarland v. American Sugar Ref. Co., 241 U.S. 79, 36......
-
State v. Kelly
...55 L.Ed. 191; Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U.S. 61, 31 S.Ct. 337, 55 L.Ed. 369, Ann.Cas. 1912C, 160; Reitler v. Harris, 223 U.S. 437, 32 S.Ct. 248, 56 L.Ed. 497; Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9, 34 S.Ct. 10, 58 L.Ed. 101; McFarland v. American Sugar Ref. Co., 241 U.S. 79, 36......
-
State v. Kelly
...145, 55 L.Ed. 191; Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U.S. 61, 31 S.Ct. 337, 55 L.Ed. 369, Ann.Cas.1912C, 160; Reitler v. Harris, 223 U.S. 437, 32 S.Ct. 248, 56 L.Ed. 497; Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9, 34 S.Ct. 10, 58 L.Ed. 101; McFarland v. American Sugar Ref. Co., 241 U.S. 79......