Cordova v. Grant

Decision Date13 January 1919
Docket NumberNo. 104,104
Citation63 L.Ed. 334,248 U.S. 413,39 S.Ct. 138
PartiesCORDOVA v. GRANT
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. F. G. Morris, of El Paso, Tex., for plaintiff in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 413-416 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Walter B. Grant, of Boston, Mass., and T. J. Beall, of El Paso, Tex., for defendant in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 416-417 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is an action of trespass to try title to land in Texas lying between the present and former bed of the Rio Grande. The plaintiff (the present defendant in error) alleged that his testator and those under whom the latter claimed had held the land under color of title from the State of Texas for the several statutory periods of limitation, and that the defendant unlawfully entered when the plaintiff had the legal title in possession as devisee. The jurisdiction of the District Court was based upon diversity of citizenship. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff's title depended upon whether the land was within the United States, and that that depended upon whether the Rio Grande, established as the boundary in 1852, had changed its channel in such a way as to continue to be the boundary or not—the land in question having been upon the Mexican side of the river in 1852 and now being on the side of the United States. The defendant went on to allege that while the United States now exercises a de facto jurisdiction over the territory where the land lies, it does so with the admission by treaty and diplomatic correspondence that the boundary is unsettled, and that 'the treaties and acts of the respective governments placing said boundary disputes within the jurisdiction of certain special authorities, of which this court must take judicial notice, must necessarily have deprived the courts of each of said republics of jurisdiction,' etc. On this ground it was prayed that the Court either dismiss the case or stay the trial until the boundary should be established. Subject to this the defendant pleaded not guilty and the ten years statute of limitation of Texas. The plaintiff demurred to the plea to the jurisdiction as showing on its face that the United States and Texas were exercising de facto jurisdiction over the land; set up that it was agreed between the United States and Mexico that Mr. Wilbur Keblinger should decide what lands in the disputed territory were proper subjects of litigation in the courts of the United States and of Texas, that he had decided this land to be such, and that his finding had been acquiesced in by both governments. He further alleged that the Government of the United States always had claimed and now claims the land as belonging to the United States, and he denied all the defendant's allegations of fact.

It was agreed that the patents from the State of Texas under which the plaintiff claimed...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Olympia Exp., Inc. v. Linee Aeree Italiane, S.P.A.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 30 novembre 2007
    ...basis upon which this case is within federal jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is power, as Holmes famously said, Cordova v. Grant, 248 U.S. 413, 419, 39 S.Ct. 138, 63 L.Ed. 334 (1919); Michigan Trust Co. v. Ferry, 228 U.S. 346, 356, 33 S.Ct. 550, 57 L.Ed. 867 (1913); see also Steel Co. v. Citizen......
  • Ivancevic v. Artukovic, 13552.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • 19 février 1954
    ...to do so, to render judgment. Citing In re Cooper, 1892, 143 U.S. 472, 503, 12 S.Ct. 453, 36 L.Ed. 232; Cordova v. Grant, 1919, 248 U.S. 413, 39 S.Ct. 138, 63 L.Ed. 334." See also § 533. It was said in Oetjen v. Central Leather Company, 1918, 246 U.S. 297, 302, 38 S.Ct. 309, 311, 62 L.Ed. 7......
  • Great Northern Ry Co v. Galbreath Catte Co, 138
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 19 avril 1926
  • Schoonmaker v. Clardy
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 5 février 1920
    ...the case had been pending, the trial court was well warranted in overruling the application for further delay. Cordova v. Grant, 248 U. S. 413, 39 Sup. Ct. 138, 63 L. Ed. 334. The bills of exception taken to the exclusion of the testimony of the witnesses Lucero, Gomez, Lowe, and Zambranos ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT