Matthew Cunningham, Plaintiff In Error v. Mary Ashley, Executrix and Sole Legatee of Chester Ashley, Deceased and William Ashley, Frances Ashley Now Frances Freeman and Henry Ashley, By Mary Ashley, His Guardian, Heirs At Law of Said Chester Ashley, Deceased and Roswell Beebe
Decision Date | 01 December 1852 |
Citation | 55 U.S. 377,14 How. 377,14 L.Ed. 462 |
Parties | MATTHEW CUNNINGHAM, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. MARY W. W. ASHLEY, EXECUTRIX AND SOLE LEGATEE OF CHESTER ASHLEY, DECEASED, AND WILLIAM E. ASHLEY, FRANCES A. ASHLEY, (NOW FRANCES A. FREEMAN,) AND HENRY W. ASHLEY, BY MARY W. W. ASHLEY, HIS GUARDIAN, HEIRS AT LAW OF SAID CHESTER ASHLEY, DECEASED, AND ROSWELL BEEBE |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
On the 26th of December, 1838, the Commissioner of the General Land-Office, required the land-officers at Little Rock to inform him, 'why entries 3549 and 3554, with two others, were permitted to be made on land already occupied by prior claims long since located, and against the validity of which this office possesses no evidence.' In reply, dated 30th January, 1839, the land-officers stated, that the entries were permitted 'upon the demand of Roswell Beebe, and the several allegations made by him, setting forth and showing, conclusively, that the Treasury Department had disallowed the pre emption claims under the act of 1814, upon all the lands south of the Arkansas River, ceded by the Quapaw treaties of 1818, and 1824,' &c. And they say, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dugan v. Montoya
...958, 15 C. C. A. 96, 106, 32 U. S. App. 272, 288; U. S. v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 95 Fed. 864, 870, 37 C. C. A. 290, 296; Cunningham v. Ashley, 14 How. 377, 14 L. Ed. 462; Barnard v. Ashley, 18 How. 43, 15 L. Ed. 285; Garland v. Wynn, 20 How. 6, 15 L. Ed. 801; Lytle v. Arkansas, 22 How. 193,......
-
King v. McAndrews
... ... King, on the brief), for ... plaintiff in error ... John D ... Rivers, for ... Pease, L.C. Rush, and William Lawson ... to recover possession of lots 3 and 4 ... consisted of a void patent issued to Henry J. King on July 6, ... 1899. The plaintiff filed ... 209, 23 L.Ed. 849; ... Iron Co. v. Cunningham, 155 U.S. 354, 15 Sup.Ct ... 103, 39 L.Ed ... C.C.A. 290, 296; Cunningham v. Ashley, 14 How. 377, ... 14 L.Ed. 462; Barnard v ... Upon this subject ... the supreme court said in Refining Co. v. Kemp, 104 ... U.S., at page ... the United States for the sole purpose of securing homes to ... actual ... same as homesteads, or to their heirs, after the expiration ... of five years' ... ...
-
United States v. Winona & St. P.R. Co., 564.
... ... each side of each of said roads, and provided that in case it ... should ... purchased from any of them, discovered this error or received ... notice of any claim of the ... This court held that the plaintiff ... could not maintain his action, because he ... 209; Iron Co. v ... Cunningham, 15 Sup.Ct. 103; or cases in which the land ... 128, 63 F. 192, 195; Cunningham v. Ashley, 14 How ... 377; Barnard's Heirs v. Ashley's ... They were dealing with ... sole reference to the even-numbered sections within ... ...
-
Magwire v. Tyler
...v. Izard, 7 Wall. 561; Hughes v. United States, 4 Wall. 236; Hughes v. United States, 11 How. 567; Garland v. Wynn, 20 How. 6; Cunningham v. Ashley, 14 How. 377; Lindsey v. Hays, 2 Black, 557; Minnesota v. Batchelder, 1 Wall. 115; Lytle v. Arkansas, 22 How. 193; Fleming v. Slocum, 18 Johns.......