Leffingwell v. Warren

Citation17 L.Ed. 261,67 U.S. 599,2 Black 599
PartiesLEFFINGWELL v. WARREN
Decision Date01 December 1862
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

DESCRIPTION.. Section. Town. Range. Acres. Value. County. Town. ols.

E. 1/2 of S. W. 1/4 34 1 11 80 160 54 165 42 ------tal. Scho ------. $2 62

S. E. 1/4. 34. 1 11 160 320 108 230 84 ------ ------ 5 22

Lot No. 2. 11. 4 12 32.56 97 32/100 19 49 29 ------ ------... 97

N. E. 1/4 of N. E. 1/4 3 4 11 40.44 170 34 32 20 29 ------

Lot No. 1. 11. 4 12 55 165 36/100 33 83 50 ------ ------ 1 66

N. 1/2 of N. W. 1/4 1 4 10

S. W. 1/4 of N. W. 1/4 1 4 10 40 233 86 88 43 70 ------

Lot No. 3. 15. 4 12 64.35 193 14/100 39 96 58 677 ------

E. 1/2 of N. W. 1/4 14 4 11 80. 112 69 68 43 62 ---- --

---------

$25 60

'WM. A. LAWRENCE, Treasurer.

'The first two tracts being the land in question.'42

It appears further by the bill of exceptions that instructions to the jury were asked by the plaintiff in error, which were refused by the Court, to which refusal he excepted; and that instructions were given to which he also excepted.

In the view which we have taken of the case, it is necessary to advert to those instructions only which relate to the Statute of Limitations.

They are as follows:

'The counsel for the said defendant did request the said judge to charge the jury as follows:

'1. That it being admitted by the parties that the defendant entered into possession of the land in question under a tax deed, and has held said possession under said deed more than three years before the commencement of this action, and it being also admitted that said tax for which said land was sold was never paid, they will find for the defendant.

'And the said judge refused to give said instruction, and to which refusal the said defendant, by his said counsel, did then and there, and in the presence of the said jury, duly except.

'And the said judge did also then and there further declare and deliver his opinion to the said jury, that the deed is void on its face, as it recites that the several tracts therein described were sold collectively for a gross sum; and the deed being void neither it, nor the subsequent possession by the defendant under it for three years after the recording thereof, is a bar to the plaintiff's recovery.

'To which said last-mentioned opinion and charge of the said judge the said counsel for the said defendant did then and there, and in the presence of the said jury, on behalf of the said defendant, duly except.'

The Statute of Limitations relied upon by the plaintiff in error provides that——

'Any suit or proceedings for the recovery of lands sold for taxes, except in cases where the taxes have been paid or the lands redeemed as provided by law, shall be commenced within three years from the time of recording the tax deed of sale, and not thereafter.' Revised Statutes of Wisconsin of 1849, chap. 15, sec. 123, p. 164.

The Courts of the United States, in the absence of legislation upon the subject by Congress, recognize the Statutes of Limitations of the several States, and give them the same construction and effect which are given by the local tribunals. They are a rule of decision under the 34th section of the Judicial Act of 1789.

The construction given to a statute of a State by the highest judicial tribunal of such State, is regarded as a part of the statute, and is as binding upon the Courts of the United States as the text. Shelby vs. Guy, (11 Wheat., 351); McOluny vs. Silliman, (3 Pet., 270); Greene vs. Neil's Lessee, (6 Pet., 291); Ross vs. Duval, (13 Pet., 45); Massingall vs. Downs, (1 How., 767); Nesmith vs. Sheldon, (1 How., 812); Van...

To continue reading

Request your trial
93 cases
  • Greene v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • June 3, 1907
    ...liberally construed in favor of accused persons. Wharton, Cr. Pl. & Pr. art. 316 (8th Ed.); and to the same purport see Leffingwell v. Warren, 67 U.S. 606, 17 L.Ed. 261. the other hand, exceptions or provisos are to be established within the words as well as in the reason thereof. United St......
  • Coltrane v. Baltimore Building & Loan Ass'n of Baltimore City
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • June 17, 1901
    ...of such state is regarded as part of the statute, and is as binding upon the courts of the United States as the test. ' Leffingwell v. Warren, 2 Black, 599, 17 L.Ed. 261; Bucher v. Railroad Co., 125 U.S. 555-582, 8 974, 31 L.Ed. 795. I think it may be fairly stated that since 1878, long bef......
  • American Fire Ins. Co. v. King Lumber & Mfg. Co.
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • October 20, 1917
    ... ... case as this we follow the construction given by the state ... court to the statutes of its own state. Leffingwell v ... Warren, 2 Black, 599 [17 L.Ed. 261]; People v ... Weaver, 100 U.S. 539, 541 [25 L.Ed. 705]; Noble v ... Mitchell, 164 U.S. 367, 372 ... ...
  • Mcclanahan's Adm'r v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • January 24, 1918
    ...v. Kane, 86 N. Y. 57, 64; Brown v. Swander, 121 Ind. 164, 22 N. E. 725; Parker v. Metzger, 12 Or. 407, 7 Pac. 518; Leffingwell v. Warren, 2 Black, 599, 17 L Ed. 261; Bicknell v. Comstock, 113 U. S. 149, 5 Sup. Ct. 399. 28 L. Ed. 962; Campbell v. Holt, 115 V. S. 620, 623, 6 Sup. Ct. 209, 29 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • No Room for Squatters: Alaska's Adverse Possession Law
    • United States
    • Duke University School of Law Alaska Law Review No. 28, December 2011
    • Invalid date
    ...not only bars the remedy, but it extinguishes the right, and vests a perfect title in the adverse holder." (quoting Leffingwell v. Warren, 67 U.S. 599, 605 [21] 10 Thompson on Real Property, supra note 18, § 87.04. [22]Id.; 3 American Law of Property, supra note 17, § 15.3. The specific req......

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