US Supreme Court Rules Military Fort Land Reserved for Government Use

Page 1
38 U.S. 498, 13 Pet. 498, 1839 WL 4329 (U.S.Ill.), 10 L.Ed. 264

(Cite as: 38 U.S. 498, 1839 WL 4329 (U.S.Ill.))
2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
Page 2
left the same in the possession of one Oliver Newberry,
who authorized George Dole to take and keep the same in
repair; which said Dole accordingly did. Said post was
again occupied by the troops of the government in June,
1832, under the command of Major Whistler, an office in
the army of the United States. At the time Major Whistler
took possession, being at the time of the war with the
Sock and Fox Indians, several hundred persons were in
**1 ERROR to the Superior Court of the state of Illinois. the fort for security against the Indians. The military post
has been occupied by the troops, and was generally
In the Circuit Court of Cook county, in the state of known at Chicago to be so occupied from that date up to
Illinois, an action of ejectment was commenced inthe commencement of this suit, and is still used for that
February, 1836, by John Jackson, on the demise ofpurpose.
Murray M'Connel, against De la Fayette Wilcox, for the
recovery of a part of the military post of Fort Dearborn, at When the military post was evacuated in 1831, the
Chicago, in the state of Illinois; the defendant being then quartermaster at the post, acting under orders, sold a
in possession of the premises as the commander of the greater part of the movable property, in and about the
post. The defendant appeared, and after the usualgarrison, belonging to the government, but sold none of
pleadings, the cause was brought to trial in October, 1836, the buildings belonging to the military post.
and submitted to the Court on an agreed statement of
facts, which was to be taken as if found as a special **2 In the year 1817, John Baptiste Beaubean bought of
verdict.
one John Dean, who was an army contractor at the post, a
house built upon said land, by the said Dean, and gave
The premises sued for are part of fractional section 10, in him therefor one thousand dollars; attached to the house
township 39, north of range 14, east of the third principal was an enclosure used and occupied by said Dean, as a
meridian, in the county of Cook, and state of Illinois; and garden and field, and Mr. Beaubean then took possession
embrace the military post called Fort Dearborn, of whichof the house and enclosure, and continued in possession,
post, at the time of the bringing of this suit, and the cultivating a part of the enclosure every year, from the
service of the declaration therein, the said defendant, De year 1817 to the 17th of June, 1836.
la Fayette Wilcox, was in the possession of the *500 said
premises, and was the commanding officer under the In 1823, the factory houses built at the post upon the tract
authority of the United States; which post was established of land, were by order of the Secretary of the Treasury
by the United States in 1804, and was thereafter occupied sold, and Capt. Henry Whiting became the purchaser
by the troops of the United States till August 16, 1812, thereof. In the same year Whiting sold said improvements
when the troops were massacred, and the post taken byto the American Fur Company, and the company for the
the enemies of the country. It was reoccupied by the sum of five hundred dollars sold to said Beaubean, who
troops on the 4th of July, 1816; in which year the United took possession thereof, and continued to occupy the
States caused to be built upon the fractional section, No. same, together with a part of the quarter section of land,
10, T. 39, N. R. 14 east, some factory houses for the use to the *501 date of the commencement of this suit. Mr.
of the Indian department. The troops continued to occupyBeaubean continued to occupy said houses and enclosure
the post until the month of May, 1823, when it was upon the land, and to cultivate a part of the land
evacuated by order of the government, and was left inunmolested and undisturbed by any person whatever,
possession of Dr. A. Wolcott, Indian agent at Chicago.
from the year 1817 up to the day of the commencement of
this suit.
On the 19th of August, in the year 1828, the military post
was again occupied by the troops of the government, The land in question was surveyed by the government in
acting under the order of the Secretary of War, as one ofthe year 1821.
the military posts of the United States. The post was again
evacuated by the troops of the government in the monthSince the military post was reoccupied by the United
of May, 1831, though the government never gave up theStates troops in 1832, as before stated, to wit, before the
possession of the military post, called Fort Dearborn; butfirst day of May, 1834, the United States built a
Supreme Court of the United States
DE LA FAYETTE WILCOX, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
JOHN JACKSON, ON THE DEMISE OF MURRAY
M'CONNEL, DEFENDANT IN ERROR.
January Term, 1839
Page 3
lighthouse upon part of the land, and have kept constantlydepartment at that post, agreeably to his suggestions. I
enclosed and cultivated for the use of the said garrison at have the honour to be, &c.
least twenty acres of said land. The United States troops,
by order and consent of the government, have also usedGEORGE GRAHAM, Esq.,
and occupied various other government lands near and
adjoining the quarter section of land.
J. C. CALHOUN.
On the 2d of September, 1824, Dr. A. Wolcott, Indian Commissioner of the General Land Office, Treasury
agent, then stationed at Chicago, wrote the followingDepartment.'*502
letter to the Secretary of War of the United States, to wit:
And thereupon, on the first day of October, 1824, George
Graham, then commissioner of the land office, addressed
a letter in reply to the Secretary of War, at the same time
Sir: I have the honour to suggest to your consideration subjoining to the letter of the said Secretary of War, this
the propriety of making a reservation of this post and the note, to wit: Answered the first of October, 1824, and the
fraction on which it is situated, for the use of this agency.frac. Sec. 10, T. 39, N. R. 14 E. coloured and marked on
It is very convenient for that purpose, as the quarters the map, as reserved for military purposes.
afford sufficient accommodation for all the persons in the
employ of the agency, and the storehouses are safe and The letter in reply is as follows, to wit:
commodious places for the provisions and other property
that may be in charge of the agent. The buildings and
other property, by being in possession of a public officer, General Land Office, 1st of October, 1824.
will be preserved for public use, should it ever be
Sir: In compliance with your request, I have directed that
necessary to occupy them again with a military force.
the fractional section 10, Township 39, N. R. 14 E.,
As to the size of the fraction I am not certain, but I think it containing 57.50 acres and within which Fort Dearborn is
contains about sixty acres; a considerable greater tract situated, should be reserved from sale for military
than that is under fence; but that would be abundantly purposes. I am, &c.
Fort Dearborn, Chicago, Sept. 2, 1824.
sufficient for the use of the agency, and contains all the
buildings attached to the fort, such as a mill, barn, stable, GEORGE GRAHAM.
&c. which it would be desirable to preserve.
HON. J. C. CALHOUN, Secretary of War.'
**3 I have the honour to be, &c.,
Which fractional section, mentioned in the foregoing
ALEXANDER WOLCOTT, Jun., HON. J. C.letter of George Graham, embraces the premises sued for,
and Fort Dearborn, occupied by the United States as
CALHOUN, Secretary of War.
aforesaid.
Indian Agent.'
After the writing and receipt of the letters aforesaid, to

Which letter John C. Calhoun, then Secretary of War of wit, on the 29th day of May, 1830, Congress passed a law
the United States, on the 30th of September, 1824, granting the right of pre-emption upon the public lands to
enclosed with the following note to George Graham, Esq.,every person who cultivated any part of a quarter section
Commissioner of the General Land Office of the United of said land in 1829, and was in the actual possession
thereof on the 29th day of May, 1830; but which preStates.
emption right does not extend to any land which is
reserved from sale by act of Congress, or by order of the
Department of War, 30th Sept. 1824.
President, or which may have been appropriated for any
purpose whatsoever, or for the use of the United States, or
Sir: I enclose herewith a copy of a letter from Dr. either of the states in which any of the public lands may
Wolcott, Indian agent at Chicago, and request you willbe situated. Mr. Beaubean having cultivated a part of F
direct a reservation to be made for the use of the Indian
Page 4
section in 1829, and having been in possession of a part grant pre-emption rights to settlers on public lands,
so cultivated on the 29th day of May, 1830; on the 7th day approved 29th May, 1830, and the act is hereby revived,
of May, 1831, made application to the Register and and shall continue in force two years from the passage of
Receiver of the United States land office at Palestine, in this act and no longer; and Mr. Beaubean having
Illinois, and offered to prove a pre-emption upon the land,cultivated a part of the fractional quarter of section ten in
and purchase the same at private sale, under the pre- 1833, and having been in the actual possession and
emption law, which claim of pre-emption upon the landoccupancy of the part, so by him cultivated, on the 19th
was not by the Register and Receiver at Palestine allowed day of June, 1834, the date of the passage of the last
to Mr. Beaubean.
recited law, did, in the month of July, 1834, apply to the
Register and Receiver of the United States land office at
**4 One Robert Kenzie, on the 7th day of May, 1831, Danville, in Illinois, for leave to prove a pre-emption, and
made application to the Register and Receiver of the land enter the fractional quarter under the last recited act;
office, to be allowed to enter at private sale a part of the which application and claim of Beaubean was rejected by
same fractional section 10; and the claim by the said the said Register and Receiver at Danville aforesaid, who
Register and Receiver was then passed and allowed, and informed Beaubean that said land was reserved for
Robert Kenzie was then permitted to enter at private sale, military purposes.
under pre-emption law, the north fraction of fractional
section ten.
**5 After the writing of the letters by Dr. Wolcott, Indian
agent, and J. C. Calhoun, Secretary of War, and George
After the application of Mr. Beaubean to the Register and Graham, Commissioner of the General Land Office,
Receiver at Palestine as aforesaid, to wit, on the 7th and herein before referred to and set forth, to wit, on the 26th
12th of May, 1831, Joseph Kitchell, then Register of the day of June, 1834, Congress by a law approved upon that
land office, addressed letters to Elijah Hayward, Esq.,day created two additional land districts in Illinois; one
then Commissioner of the General Land Office of the called north-west and the other the north-east land
United States, informing him of the application of the said districts of the state of Illinois, and the last mentioned
Beaubean to enter said S. W. F section 10, *503 town 39,district includes the land in controversy.
north of range 14 east, under the pre-emption act; and on
the 2d of November, 1831, Mr. Beaubean addressed aBy the fourth section of said act it is provided that the
letter to the said Hayward, commissioner, &c., stating that President shall be authorized, so soon as the survey shall
in the month of May preceding he had filed in the office be completed, to cause to be offered for sale, in the
at Palestine aforesaid, proof of his right of pre-emption to manner prescribed by law, all the lands lying in said land
the land, and insisting that he was entitled to have the district at the land offices, in the respective districts in
claim allowed; and in answer thereto was informed by the which the lands so offered is embraced, reserving only
commissioner by letter, dated the 2d of February, 1832, section sixteen in each township, the tract reserved for the
that said south-west quarter of said fractional section ten, village of Galena; such other tracts as have been granted
T. 39, N. R. 14 E. was reserved for military purposes. On to individuals *504 and the state of Illinois, and such
the 1st of October, 1824, several other persons, in behalf reservation as the President shall deem necessary to retain
of said Beaubean, after his application as aforesaid, prior for military posts; any law of Congress heretofore existing
to the said 2d of February, 1832, made inquiry by letter ofto the contrary notwithstanding.
said commissioner touching the same, and were informed
by the commissioner that the tract of land had been It is further provided by said act, that there shall be
reserved for military purposes, and said Beaubean's established in each of said land districts a land office at
application as aforesaid was rejected.
such time and place as the President may deem
necessary; and that a land office was established in said
Afterwards, to wit, on the 19th day of June, 1834, north-east land district before the 1st of May, 1835, which
Congress passed an act to revive the pre-emption law ofis the land office at Chicago.
the 29th of May, 1830, by the first section of which act is
provided that every settler or occupant of the public landsAfter the passage of the act, and after the land office
prior to the passage of this act, who is now in possession, aforesaid was established, the President of the United
and cultivated any part thereof in 1833, shall be entitled toStates, on the 12th day of February, 1835, made and
all the benefits and privileges of the act entitled an act to published his proclamation directing various lands in said
Page 5
north-eastern land district to be sold at said land office at
Chicago. Among said lands so proclaimed for sale, is the E. D. TAYLOR, Receiver.
said fractional section 10, in town 39, N. R. 14 E. unless
the same is excepted by the general exception in said
$94 61.-Michigan paper.'
proclamation, in the words following, to wit: The lands
reserved by law for the use of schools, and for other
Mr. Beaubean also obtained from the register of the last
purposes, will be excluded from the sale.
mentioned land office a certificate in the words and
figures following, to wit:-The lands were directed by the proclamation to be sold at
Chicago land office aforesaid, on the 15th day of June,
1835, and before the said 15th day of June, to wit, in the Land Office at Chicago, Illinois, May 28th, 1835.
month of April, 1835, the Commissioner of the General
Land Office caused to be transmitted to said land office at No. 6. It is hereby certified that, in pursuance of law,
Chicago the extended plat of the land in the said John Baptiste Beaubean, of Cook county, state of Illinois,
proclamation mentioned, marking and colouring uponon this day purchased of the register of this office the lot
said plat certain lands to be reserved from sale; but neither or south-west fractional quarter of section number ten, in
the fractional section 10, or any of the divisions thereof, township number 39, north of range fourteen east,
containing seventy-five and sixty-nine hundredths acres,
were so marked or coloured to be reserved from sale.
at the rate of one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre,
At the bottom of the President's proclamation is a general amounting to ninety-four dollars and seventy-five cents,
notice requiring all persons who claim the right of pre- for which the said John Baptiste Beaubean has made
emption to any of the lands in the proclamation payment in full as required by law. Now, therefore, be it
mentioned, to appear before the Register and Receiver of known, that on the presentation of this certificate to the
the land office before the day appointed by saidCommissioner of the General Land Office, the said John
proclamation for the sale of said lands, and prove theirBaptiste Beaubean shall be entitled to receive a patent for
pre-emption; and after the notice the said John Baptiste the lot above described.
Beaubean did, on the 28th day of May, 1835, appear
before the register and receiver of the land office at JAMES WHITLOCK, Register.
Chicago, there prove to the satisfaction of the said
Register and Receiver that he was entitled to the right of Pre-emption act, 1834.'
pre-emption to the said south-west fractional quarter of
fractional section ten, and Mr. Beaubean did, on the 28th Which certificate was presented to the Commissioner of
day of May, 1835, enter and purchase at private sale of the General Land Office, and filed in the office.
the United States and of the Register of said land office,
the south-west fractional section ten, and then and there
Afterwards, to wit, on the 4th day of March, 1836, the
paid to the Receiver of said land office one dollar and
Register of the said land office at Chicago made, signed,
twenty-five cents per acre, in full payment for said land,
and delivered to Mr. Beaubean his certificate in the words
and obtained from the Receiver aforesaid the following
and figures following, to wit:-receipt, to wit:
**6 Land Office, at Chicago, Illinois; 28th May, 1835.
Land Office, Chicago, Illinois.
I, James Whitlock, register of the land office at Chicago,

in the state of Illinois, do hereby certify that John Baptiste
Beaubean, of the town of Chicago and state of Illinois,
No. 6. Received of John Baptiste Beaubean, of Cook did, on the 28th day of May, in the year of our Lord 1835,
county, Illinois, the sum of ninety-four dollars ano sixty- under and by virtue of an act of Congress, passed on the
one cents, being in *505 full payment for the south-west 19th day of June, 1834, entitled, An act to revive an act
fractional quarter of section No. 10, in township No. 39, granting pre-emption rights to settlers on the public lands,
north of range No. 14, east of the third principal meridian, passed the 29th day of May, 1830, prove to the
containing seventy-five acres and sixty-nine hundredths satisfaction of the register and receiver that the said
of an acre, at the rate of $1 25 per acre.
Pre-emption Act, 19th June, 1834.
Page 6
Beaubean was entitled to the right of pre-emption under ordered into possession and command of the military post
said act of the 19th of June, 1834, to the south-west on the premises, together with the United States troops
fractional quarter of fractional section number ten, in under his command, by order of the Secretary of War of
township 39, north of range number fourteen east, and the the United States; and that said Wilcox claims no right of
said Beaubean did then enter and purchase of the United ownership in himself to the land, but is in possession of
States and of the register of said office the said south-west and occupies the same not in his own right, but as an
fractional quarter of fractional section number ten, in officer of the army of the United States only, in the
township number thirty-nine, north of range numbercommand of the post, acting under order of the Secretary
fourteen east, of the third principal meridian, situated inof War, and of his superior officer, and of the United
the district of lands offered for sale at the land office at States.
Chicago aforesaid, and is included in the north-east *506
land district of the state of Illinois, which tract of land After the purchase of the said land by Mr. Beaubien, as
contains seventy-five acres and sixty-nine hundredths of herein before stated, to wit, on the sixth day of February,
an acre; for which tract of land he, the said Beaubean,1836, he, the said Beaubien, by deed duly executed,
paid the sum of ninety-four dollars and sixty-one cents, acknowledged, and recorded, according to the laws of the
being one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre in fullsaid state of Illinois, for and in consideration of the sum
payment for the same.
of _____ dollars therein expressed, sold and conveyed the
said premises, in the declaration mentioned, to Murray
**7 All of which appears by the papers on file in said landM'Connel, the lessor of the plaintiff; who purchased with
office, and by the maps, plats, and records of said office a knowledge that a controversy existed between Mr.
now here.
Beaubean and the government about said land.
Given under my hand, as register as aforesaid, at the land It is further admitted that after the purchase of the land by
office aforesaid, this 4th day of March, in the year of our J. B. Beaubean, as herein before stated, Elijah Hayward,
Lord 1836.
Esq., then Commissioner of the General Land Office, on
the 31st of July, 1835, addressed a letter to the Register
and Receiver of the land office, *507 at Chicago, stating
JAMES WHITLOCK, Register.'
that it had been represented to the department that the
Afterwards, to wit, on the 2d day of July, 1836, Congress land officers at Chicago had permitted to be sold said
passed an act entitled an act to confirm the sales of publicsouth-west fractional section ten, T. 39 N. R. 14 E.
lands in certain cases; by the second section of which it is including the site of Fort Dearborn, and informing them
provided that in all cases where any entry has been made that such sale is invalid in consequence of the reservation
under the pre-emption laws, pursuant to instructions sent and appropriation of said fraction for military purposes,
to the register and receiver from the treasury department, since the year 1824, and directing the Receiver to refund
and the proceedings have been in all other respects fairto Mr. Beaubean the amount of the purchase money paid
and regular, such entries and sales are hereby confirmed,thereon, which money was tendered by the Receiver to
Mr. Beaubean, who refused to receive the same.
and patents shall be issued thereon as in other cases.
It is admitted that the defendant, Wilcox, at the **8 On the 23d of January, in the year 1834, Elijah
commencement of this suit, and at the time of the service Hayward, then Commissioner of the General Land Office,
of the declaration in ejectment herein, was in the addressed a note to the Hon. Lewis Cass, then Secretary
occupancy and possession of the premises in said of War of the United States, enclosing a copy of the letter
declaration mentioned, which is a stockade of pickets, of the 30th of September, 1824, from the then Secretary
including some wooden buildings in which the soldiers of War, Mr. Calhoun, requesting that said tract of land at
and officers reside, and that the rents and profits of said Chicago, upon which Fort Dearborn was situated, might
premises then was, and still are of the value of three be reserved for the Indian department, and a copy of the
Commissioner Graham's reply, of the 1st of October,
dollars per month.
1824, herein before set forth, stating that he had directed
the land to be reserved for military purposes, and after
It is also admitted that said defendant Wilcox then was, stating that the tract of land in question, designated as
and still is an officer in the United States army, and was fractional section ten, T. 39 N. R. 14 E. was claimed
Page 7
under the act of Congress, granting pre-emption rights; Circuit Court was reversed, and judgment entered for the
and Mr. Commissioner Hayward then requested saidplaintiff below.
Secretary Cass to advise the office whether it was then (to
wit, on the 23d of January, 1834,) needed by the war To reverse this judgment, this writ of error was sued out at
department, and if so, whether it is considered a military the instance of the United States; they being the parties
reservation, or as a reservation for the use of the Indian interested in the case.
department; and on the 21st of March, 1834, the Secretary
of War addressed a letter in answer to the inquiry of the
West Headnotes
Commissioner, informing him that the reservation at
Chicago, alluded to in the letter of the Commissioner, of
29
the 23d January, 1834, was wanted, and was actually used Public Lands 317
for military purposes.
317 Public Lands
317II Survey and Disposal of Lands of United States
It is admitted that various persons, from time to time,
317II(B) Entries, Sales, and Possessory Rights
have resided upon the fractional quarter section ten, as
317k29 k. Lands Subject to Entry. Most Cited
well as Mr. Beaubean, but all those persons were all, in
Cases
some way, connected with the army, and acting under the
command of the United States' officers; and that one The grant by the register and receiver of the land office of
Samuel T. Brady, (who was a settler at said military post,) pre-emption to lands of the United States which had
in June, 1835, presented his claim to the right of pre- before been reserved for military purposes is void.
emption to the land, before the register and receiver of the
34
said land office at Chicago, but which claim was rejectedPublic Lands 317
by the land officers, or never acted upon by them.
317 Public Lands
All the facts herein stated are admitted to be true; but they
317II(B) Entries, Sales, and Possessory Rights
are not admitted to be evidence in the cause, unless the
317k34 k. Pre-Emption. Most Cited Cases
Court should be of opinion, upon the hearing of the case,
that the facts, or any of them, would be admissible as Residence at a military post of the United States from
evidence, if offered in evidence by one party, and objected 1817 to 1836, by permission of the government, and
to by the other, upon the trial of the cause before a jury. purchasing old buildings thereon when the post is no
longer occupied, gives no pre-emption right, especially if
It is agreed that, if the Court should be of opinion, uponthe land is expressly reserved for military purposes, and
the hearing of the case, that the law of the case is with the the United States survey and build lighthouses thereon.
plaintiff, a judgment shall be rendered, that he recover his
term aforesaid; and that he have his writ of possession, Public Lands 317
110
&c., and that a judgment be rendered *508 against the
defendant in favour of the plaintiff, for the use of the said 317 Public Lands
lessor, for the amount of the rents and profits in the said
plaintiff's declaration mentioned, together with his costs.
317II(J) Patents
But should the Court be of opinion that the law of the case
317k110 k. Right to and Necessity for Patent in
is with the defendant, then the plaintiff shall take nothingGeneral. Most Cited Cases
by his suit, and a judgment shall be rendered against the A state has no power to declare that a title derived from
lessor of the plaintiff for the cost of this suit.
the United States shall be deemed as perfect a title as if a
patent had issued; the various acts of congress being to
**9 Each party retains the right to remove the cause to the the effect that title is reserved in the federal government
Supreme Court of the state of Illinois, by appeal or writ of until passed by a patent.
error.
The case was argued by Mr. Butler, and by Mr. Grundy,
Attorney General, for the plaintiffs; and by Mr. Key and
The judge of the Circuit Court of Illinois gave judgment Mr. Webster for the defendant.
for the defendant: and an appeal was taken to the Supreme
Court of Illinois, by which Court the judgment of the For the plaintiff in error, it was contended:
Page 8
I. Even if he admitted that Beaubean was entitled to right Ejectment for a tract of land in Cook county, Illinois,
of pre-emption, and that the sale and the certificates being a fractional section, embracing the military post
thereof were properly made to him; still the plaintiff called Fort Dearborn, at the time of the institution of the
cannot recover in this suit.
suit; in the possession of the defendant as the
commanding officer of the United States. The post was
1. On the true construction of the several acts of Congress established in 1804, and was occupied by the troops of the
applicable to the case; a patent is necessary to theUnited States until August 16th, 1812, when the troops
completion of the legal title, and nothing short of it can, were massacred, and the fort taken by the enemy. It was
as against the United States, defeat their title in an action reoccupied by the United States in 1816, and continued to
be so held until May, 1823, during which time some
of ejectment.
factory houses, for the use of the Indian department, were
**10 2. The plaintiff can derive no aid from the law of erected on it. It was evacuated by order of the war
Illinois, referred to in the opinions of the Courts below; department in 1823, and was, by order of the department,
because that law, if it attempts to make the certificate of again occupied by troops in 1828, as one of the military
the Register of the land office evidence of title as against posts of the United States; was again evacuated in 1831,
the United States, is repugnant to the ordinance of 1787;the government having authorized a person to take and
to the Constitution of the United States; and to the acts ofkeep possession of it. It was again occupied by troops of
Congress for the disposal of the public lands, and is, the United States, in 1832, and continued so to be at the
commencement of this suit, being generally known at
therefore, null and void.
Chicago to be occupied as a military post of the United
States. The buildings about the garrison were not sold in
II. The land officers at Chicago had no jurisdiction or 1831, when it was evacuated; although a great part of the
authority to allow, or act on the pre-emption claim of movable property in and about it, was sold. In 1817,
Beaubean; and the entry and pretended purchase by himBeaubean bought of an army contractor, for one thousand
were, therefore, as against the United States, utterly null dollars, a house built on the land. There was attached to
and void.
the house an enclosure, occupied as a garden or field, of
which Beaubean continued in possession until 1836. In
1. Beaubean's possession and occupancy were subject to 1823, the factory houses on the land were sold by order of
the control of the officers and troops of the United Statesthe Secretary of War, and were bought by Beaubean, for
stationed at Fort Dearborn; and, therefore, he could not five hundred dollars. Of these he took possession, and
acquire, within the meaning of the acts of Congress, a pre- continued to occupy them, and to cultivate the land,
emption right to any part of the premises.
without interruption by the United States, until the
commencement of this suit. The United States, in May,
2. The premises in question were withdrawn from the 1834, built a lighthouse on the land, and have kept twenty
general operation of the pre-emption and other laws, byacres enclosed and cultivated. The land was surveyed by
the act of Congress of March 3d, 1819, to authorise the the government of the United States, in 1821; and in
1824, at the instance of the Indian agent at Chicago, the
sale of certain military sites.*509
Secretary of War requested the commissioner of the
3. If not so withdrawn, they were yet excepted from the general land office to reserve this land for the
pre-emption laws of the 29th of May, 1830, and the 19th accommodation and protection of the property of the
of June, 1834; because reserved and appropriated, or at Indian agency; who, in 1821, informed the Secretary of
least appropriated, for use of the United States, within the War that he had directed this section of land to be
reserved from sale, for military purposes. In May, 1831,
meaning of those acts.
Beaubean claimed this land, at the land office in Palestine,
for pre-emption. This claim was rejected, and, by the
4. The act of June 26, 1834, creating additional land
commissioner of the land office, he was, in February,
districts, gives no right of pre-emption; and the plaintiff
1832, informed that the land was reserved for military
can therefore derive no title therefrom; and the premises
purposes. This information was also given to others who
were also excepted from that law, because reserved,
applied on his behalf. In 1834, he applied for this land to
within the meaning thereof, as necessary to be retained for
the office in Danville, and his application was rejected. In
a military post.
1835, Beaubean applied for the land to the land office at
Page 9
Chicago, when his claim to pre-emption was allowed; andinterests.
he paid the purchase money, and procured the register's
certificate. Beaubean sold and conveyed his interest to the Nothing passes a perfect title to public lands, with the
plaintiff in the ejectment. Held, that Beaubean acquired exception of a few cases, but a patent. The exceptions are,
no title to the land by his entry; and that the right of the where Congress grants lands, in words of present grant.
United States to the land was not divested or affected by The general rule applies as well to pre-emptions as to
the entry at the land office at Chicago; or by any of the other purchases of public lands.
previous acts of Beaubean.
The act of the legislature of Illinois, giving a right to the
**11 The decision of the Register and Receiver of a land holder of a register's certificate of the entry of public
office, in the absence of fraud, would be conclusive as tolands to recover possession of such lands in an action of
the facts that the applicant for the land was then in ejectment, does not apply to cases where a paramount title
possession, and of his cultivating the land during the to the lands is in the hands of the defendant, or of those he
preceding year; because these questions are directlyrepresents. The exception in the law of Illinois, applies to
submitted to those officers. Yet, if they undertake to grant cases in which the United States have not parted with the
pre-emptions to land, on which the law declares they shall title to the land, by granting a patent for it.
not be granted; then they are acting upon a subject matter
clearly not within their jurisdiction; as much so as if a A state has a perfect right to legislate as she may please in
Court, whose jurisdiction was declared not to extendregard to the remedies to be prosecuted in her Courts; and
beyond a given sum, should attempt cognizance of a case to regulate the disposition of the property of her citizens,
beyond that sum.
by descent, devise, or alienation. But Congress are
invested, by the Constitution, with the power of disposing
Appropriation of land by the government is nothing moreof the public land, and making needful rules and
or less than setting it apart for some particular use. In the regulations respecting it.
case before the Court, there has been an appropriation of
the land, not only in fact, but in law; for a military post; **12 Where a patent has not been issued for a part of the
for an Indian agency; and for the erection of a lighthouse. public lands, a state has no power to declare any title, less
than a patent, valid against a claim of the United States to
By the act of Congress of 1830, all lands are exempted the land; or against a title held under a patent granted by
from pre-emption which are reserved from sale by order the United States.
of the President of the United States. The President speaks
and acts through the heads of the several departments, in Whenever the question in any Court, state or federal, is,
relation to subjects which appertain to their respective whether the title to property which had belonged to the
duties. Both military posts, and Indian affairs, including United States has passed, that question must be resolved
agencies, belong to the war department. A reservation of by the laws of the United States. But whenever the
lands, made at the request of the *499 Secretary of War,property has passed, according to those laws, then the
for purposes in his department, must be considered as property, like all other in the state, is subject to state
made by the President of the United States within the legislation; so far as that legislation is consistent with the
terms of the act of Congress.
admission that the title passed and vested according to the
laws of the United States.
Whensoever a tract of land shall have once been legally
appropriated to any purpose, from that moment the landEvery tribunal acting judicially, whilst acting within the
thus appropriated becomes severed from the mass ofsphere of its jurisdiction, where no appellate tribunal is
public lands: and no subsequent law, or proclamation, orcreated, its judgment is final; and even where there is
sale, would be construed to embrace it, or to operate upon such an appellate power, their judgment is conclusive
it: although no other reservation were made of it.
where it only comes collaterally in question; so long as it
is unreversed. But directly the reverse is true, in relation
The right to pre-emption was a bounty extended to settlersto the judgment of any Court, acting beyond the pale of its
and occupants of the public domain. This bounty, itauthority. This principle is concisely and accurately stated
cannot be supposed, was designed to be extended to theby this Court in the case of Elliot and others vs. Peirsol
sacrifice of public establishments, or of great public
Page 10
and others. 1 Peters, 340.
part of the enclosure every year, from 1817 to 1836. In
Mr. Justice BARBOUR delivered the opinion of the1823, the factory houses on the land at said post were sold
by order of the Secretary of the Treasury, which, after an
Court:
intermediate sale, were bought by Beaubean at $500; who
This is a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the state of took possession, and continued to occupy the same,
Illinois, prosecuted under the 25th section of the judiciary together with a part of the quarter section of land, until the
act of 1789. It was an action of ejectment, brought by the commencement of this suit. Beaubean continued to
occupy the houses and enclosure, and to cultivate a part of
defendant in error against the plaintiff in error.
the land, without interruption, from 1817 to the
commencement of this suit. The land was surveyed by
From an agreed case stated in the record, the following
government in 1821. Since it was re-occupied by the
appear to be the material facts upon which the questions
troops in 1832, and before the 1st of May, 1834, the
to be decided arise. The land in question is part of
United States built a lighthouse on part of the land, and
fractional section 10, in township 39, north of range 14,
have kept at least twenty acres constantly enclosed and
east of the third principal meridian, in the county of Cook,
cultivated for the use of the garrison. In the year 1824, at
and state of Illinois; and embraces the military post called
the instance of the then Indian agent at Chicago, who
Fort Dearborn, of which post, at the time of bringing the
suggested that it would be convenient for the
suit, Wilcox was in possession, as the commanding officer
accommodation of the persons and protection of the
of the United States; which post was established by the
property of the agency, the Secretary of War requested the
United States in 1804, and was thereafter occupied by the
Commissioner of the General Land Office to direct a
troops of the United States until the 16th August, 1812,
reservation to be made for the use of the Indian
when the troops were massacred, and the post taken by
department at that post; and in October, 1824, the
the enemy. It was re-occupied in 1816, when the United
Commissioner answered, saying that he had directed the
States built upon said fractional section some factory
section now in question to be reserved from sale, for
houses for the use of the Indian department.
military purposes. In May, 1831, Beaubean made a claim
for pre-emption of the land in question at the land office
The troops continued to occupy it until May, 1823, when in Palestine, which was rejected. In February, 1832, in
it was evacuated by order of the government, and was left answer to a letter from Beaubean on the subject, the
in possession of the Indian agent at Chicago. In August, Commissioner of the General Land Office informed him
1828, it was again occupied by the troops, acting under that the land in question was reserved for military
the orders of the Secretary of War, as one of the militarypurposes. The same information was given to others who
posts of the United States. It was again evacuated by the made application in behalf of Beaubean. In 1834, he made
troops in May, 1831; but the government never gave up claim for a pre-emption in the same, at the Danville land
possession of it, but left it in possession of one Oliver office, which was also rejected. In 1835, Beaubean
Newberry, who authorized a certain George Dole to take applied to the land office at Chicago, when his claim to
and keep it in repair; which he accordingly did. It was pre-emption was allowed; and he paid the purchase
again occupied by the troops of the government in June, money, and procured the Register's certificate thereof.
1832, under command of an officer of the army of the Wilcox went into and continued in possession, claiming
United States. It has been occupied by the troops, and was no right of ownership; but as an officer of the United
generally known at Chicago to be so occupied, from that States only, in command of said post, acting under the
time up to the commencement of the suit; and was at the orders of the Secretary of War, his superior officer, and
time of the trial still used for that purpose. When it was the United States. Beaubean sold and conveyed his
evacuated in 1831, the quartermaster at the post, acting interest to the lessor of the plaintiff.
under orders, sold the greater part of the movable property
in and about the garrison belonging to the government,
**13 Upon this state of facts two questions arise which, in
but sold none of of the buildings. In the year 1817, John
our opinion, embraces the whole merits of the case; and
B. Beaubean bought of one John Dean, who was an army
which we will now proceed to examine. The first is,
contractor at the post, a house built upon the land by
whether under the facts of the case, and the law applying
Dean, at the price of $1000: there was attached to the
to them, Beaubean acquired any title whatsoever to the
house an enclosure occupied by Dean as a garden and
land in question? The second is, whether if he did acquire
field; Beaubean then took possession *510 of the house
any title at all, is it such an one as will enable the lesser of
and enclosure, and continued in possession, cultivating a
the plaintiff to recover in this action?
Page 11
void. Now to apply this. Even assuming that the decision
As to the first question. The ground of the claim is theof the Register and Receiver, in the absence of frauds,
right of Beaubean as a settler, to a pre-emption under thewould be conclusive as to the facts of the applicant then
act of the 19th June, 1834, entitled, An act to revive an being in possession, and his cultivation during the
act granting pre-emption rights to settlers on the public preceding year, because these questions are directly
lands, passed 29th of May, 1830. Now, as this act gives to submitted to them; yet if they undertake to grant prethe persons claiming under it the benefits *511 andemptions in land in which the law declares they shall not
privileges provided by the act of 1830, which it revives be granted, then they are acting upon a subject matter
we must look to this last act in order to ascertain what are clearly not within their jurisdiction; as much so as if a
those benefits and privileges, or, in other words, what is Court, whose jurisdiction was declared not to extend
the character of the pre-emption right thus claimed, andbeyond a given sum, should attempt to take cognizance of
on what lands the claim is allowed to operate. It a case beyond that sum.
authorizes every settler or occupant of the public lands,
under the circumstances therein stated, to enter with the **14 We now return to the inquiry whether the land in
Register of the land office in which the land lies, by legal question falls within any of the prohibitions contained in
subdivisions, a quantity of land not exceeding a quarter the act of Congress. Amongst others, lands, which may
section subject to the following limitations and have been appropriated for any purpose *512 whatsoever,
restrictions:-That no entry or sale of any land shall be are exempt from liability to the right of pre-emption.
made under the provisions of the act, which shall have Now, that the land in question has been appropriated in
been reserved for the use of the United States, or either of point of fact there can be no doubt, for the case agreed
the several states, or which is reserved from sale by act of states that it has been used from the year 1804 until and
Congress, or by order of the President, or which may have after the institution of this suit, as well for the purpose of
been appropriated for any purpose whatsoever.
a military post as for that of an Indian agency, with some
occasional interruption. Now this is appropriation, for that
Before we proceed to inquire whether the land in question is nothing more nor less than setting apart the thing for
falls within the scope of any one of these prohibitions, it some particular use. But it is said that this appropriation
is necessary to examine a preliminary objection which must be made by authority of law. We think that the
was urged at the bar, which, if sustainable would render appropriation in this case, was made by authority of law.
that inquiry wholly unavailing. It is this-that the acts of As far back as the year 1798, see act of May 3d of that
Congress have given to the Registers and Receivers of the year, vol. iii. Laws U. S. 46, an appropriation, was made
land offices the power of deciding upon claims to thefor the purpose, amongst other things, of enabling the
right of pre-emption-that upon these questions they act President of the United States to erect fortifications in
judicially-that no appeal having been given from theirsuch place or places as the public safety should, in his
decision, it follows as a consequence that it is conclusiveopinion, require. By the act of 21st of April, 1806, vol. iv.
and irreversible. This proposition is true in relation to Laws U. S., 64, the President was authorized to establish
every tribunal acting judicially, whilst acting within the trading houses at such posts and places, on the frontiers or
sphere of their jurisdiction, where no appellate tribunal is in the Indian country on either or both sides of the
created; and even when there is such an appellate power,Mississippi river, as he should judge most convenient for
the judgment is conclusive when it only comescarrying on trade with the Indians. And by act of June 14,
collaterally into question, so long as it is unreversed. But 1809, he was authorized to erect such fortifications as
directly the reverse of this is true in relation to the might, in his opinion, be necessary for the protection of
judgment of any Court acting beyond the pale of its the northern and western frontiers. We thus see that the
authority. The principle upon this subject is concisely and establishing trading houses with the Indian tribes, and the
accurately stated by this Court in the case of Elliott et al.erection of fortifications in the west, are purposes
vs. Peirsol et al., 1 Peters, 340, in these words: where aauthorized by law; and that they were to be established
Court has jurisdiction, it has a right to decide every and erected by the President. But the place in question is
question which occurs in the cause; and whether its one at which a trading house has been established, and a
decision be correct or otherwise, its judgment, until fortification or military post erected. It would not be
reversed is regarded as binding in every other Court. But doubted, we suppose, by any one, that if Congress had by
if it act without authority, its judgments and orders are law directed the trading house to be established and the
regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simplymilitary post erected at Fort Dearborn, by name; that this
would have been by authority of law. But instead of
Page 12
designating the place themselves, they left it to the sale.-And that an extended plat was forwarded from the
discretion of the President, which is precisely the same general land office, marking and colouring certain lands
thing in effect. Here then is an appropriation, not only for to be reserved from sale; but that the land in question was
one but for two purposes, of the same place, by authority not so marked or coloured, to be reserved from sale.
of law. But there has been a third appropriation in this
case by authority of law. Congress, by law, authorized the In the first place we remark, that we do not consider this
erection of a lighthouse at the mouth of Chicago river, law as applying at all to the case. That has relation to a
which is within the limits of the land in question, and sale of lands in the manner prescribed by general law at
appropriated $5000 for its erection; and the case agreed public auction, whilst the claim to the land in question is
states that the lighthouse was built on part of the land in founded on a right of pre-emption, and governed by
dispute before the 1st of May, 1834. We think, then, that different laws. The very act of 19th of June, 1834, under
there has been an appropriation, not only in fact but in which this claim is made, was passed but one week before
law.
the one of which we are now speaking; thus showing that
the provisions of the one were not intended to have any
There would be difficulty in deciding to what extent this effect upon the subject matter on which the other
appropriation reached, if there were not materialsoperated. But we go further, and say, that whensoever a
furnished by the record which reduce it to precision. At tract of land shall have once been legally appropriated to
the request of the Secretary of War, the Commissioner of any purpose, from that moment the land thus appropriated
the General Land Office in 1824, coloured and marked becomes severed from the mass of public lands; and that
upon the map this very section, as reserved for militaryno subsequent law, or proclamation, or sale, would be
purposes, and directed it to be reserved from sale for construed to embrace it, or to operate upon it; although no
those purposes. We consider this, too, as having been reservation were made of it.
done by authority of law; for amongst other provisions in
the *513 act of 1830, all lands are exempted from pre-The very act which we are now considering will furnish
emption which are reserved from sale by order of the an illustration of this proposition. Thus, in that act there is
President. Now although the immediate agent in requiringexpressly reserved from sale the land, within that district
this reservation was the Secretary of War, yet we feel which had been granted to individuals, and the state of
justified in presuming that it was done by the approbation Illinois. Now suppose this reservation had not been made,
and direction of the President. The President speaks and either in the law, proclamation, or sale, could it be
acts through the heads of the several departments inconceived that if that land were sold at auction, the title of
relation to subjects which appertain to their respective the purchaser would avail against the individuals or state
duties. Both military posts and Indian affairs, including to whom the previous grants had been made? If, as we
agencies, belong to the war department. Hence we suppose, this *514 question must be answered in the
consider the act of the war department in requiring thisnegative, the same principle will apply to any land which
reservation to be made, as being in legal contemplation by authority of law shall have been severed from the
the act of the President; and, consequently, that thegeneral mass. Let us for a moment consider to what
reservation thus made was in legal effect, a reservation results a contrary doctrine would lead; and the case before
made by order of the President, within the terms of the act us will furnish a very striking illustration of them. If the
of Congress.
party claiming the pre-emption right here were to
succeed, together with the land, he would recover all the
**15 It is argued, however, that by the 4th section of theimprovements made upon it at the public expense. The
act of the 26th of June, 1834, the President was authorized lighthouse and improvements alone, it seems by reference
to cause to be sold all the lands in the north-east district of to the act making an appropriation for its erection, cost
the state of Illinois, embracing the land in question with $5000. How much was expended in the buildings at the
certain reservations only, within which it is contended that military post we have no means of knowing, but probably
the land in question is not included-that a proclamation a considerably larger sum. Thus, besides the land
was issued directing various lands in said district to be purchased, for the sum of $94 61, he would recover
sold, and that amongst the lands so proclaimed was the property, and that too property necessary for the military
land in question, unless excepted by the following defence and commerce of the country, which cost the
exception:-the lands reserved by law for the use of United States many thousands of dollars; and if there had
schools, and for other purposes, will be excluded from the been expended upon it as many hundreds of thousands, as
Page 13
there have been thousands, the same result would follow.been filed before the expiration of the year. To this case,
A principle leading to such startling consequences cannot and others similarly situated, the law may well apply;
in our opinion be a sound one. The right of preemptionbecause without affecting the general principles of the
was a bounty extended to settlers and occupants of the system, they present instances in which innocent parties
public domain. We cannot suppose that this bounty waswould have been injured by the acts or omissions of
designed to be extended at the sacrifice of public public officers, or by some other cause, as to which no
establishments, or great public interests. When the act offault was imputable to them. But, further, the entries to be
1830 was passed, Congress must have known of thesaved by this section must have been pursuant to
authority which had by former laws been given to the instructions sent to the Register and Receiver from the
President, to establish trading houses and military posts. treasury department. Now it not only is not shown that
They must have known, for it was part of the publicany instructions were so sent which would authorize this
history of the country, that a military post had been long pre-emption; but, on the contrary, the agreed case shows
established at Fort Dearborn; and was at the date of thethat the Register and Receiver at the Palestine land office
law occupied as such by the troops of the United States. rejected it in 1831; that the Commissioner of the General
They seem therefore to have been studious to useLand Office, in the same year, in answer to a letter of
language of so comprehensive a kind, in the exemption Beaubean complaining of that rejection, informed him
from the right of pre-emption, as to embrace everythat the land was reserved for military purposes; and that
description of reservation and appropriation which had in July, 1834, after the passage of the pre-emption law of
been previously made for public purposes. We have that year, he applied to the Register and Receiver of the
already said that we think the-language in which theseDanville land office to prove a pre-emption to the same
exemptions are expressed is comprehensive enough toland, who also rejected the application, and again
embrace the present case, so as to place it beyond the informed him that it was reserved for military purposes.
reach of the right of pre-emption.
Finally, by the express terms of this section, entries under
the pre-emption laws, to be protected by it must be in all
**16 It is further argued that this case is embraced by the other respects fair and regular. Now as the patents were to
second section of the act of July 2d, 1836, entitled, An be issued by the Commissioner of the General Land
act to confirm the sales of public lands in certain cases. Office, and as they were only to issue where the
That section is in these words: And be it further enacted, proceedings were fair and regular, that officer must of
that in all cases where an entry has been made under thenecessity be the judge of that fairness and regularity. But
pre-emption laws pursuant to instructions sent to the as he refused to issue the patent, we know not whether he
Register and Receiver from the treasury department, and considered the proceedings in this case as being fair and
the proceedings have been in all other respects fair andregular. If they were not so, then they were not confirmed.
regular, such entries and sales are hereby confirmed; and We think therefore that the claimant can derive no aid
patents shall be issued thereon, as in other cases. Now the from the act of 1836. Our conclusion then, in relation to
first remark we make upon this act is, that when the the first question is, that under the facts of the case, and
previous alw had totally exempted certain lands from the the law applying to them, Beaubean acquired no title
right of pre-emption, if there were nothing else in the whatsoever to the land in question.
case, it would be a very strong, not to say strained
construction of this section, to hold that Congress meant **17 This being the case, it would not be absolutely
thereby by implication to repeal the former law in so necessary to decide the second question; but as it arises in
important a provision. But we are *515 satisfied that therethe case, and has been fully argued, we will bestow upon
were other cases to which it was intended to apply; where it a very brief examination. That question is, whether if he
the instructions from the treasury department assumed, to had acquired any title at all, it was such an one as would
say the least, a doubtful if not an illegal power. As, for enable the lessor of the plaintiff below to recover in this
example, the instructions of the 7th February and 17th action? Wilcox, the defendant in the original suit, did not
October, 1831, by which entries were allowed to be madeclaim, or pretend to set up any right or title in himself. He
and certificates issued under the act 1830; which was onlyheld possession as an officer of the United States; and for
in force for one year from its passage; after the expiration them, and under *516 their orders. This being the state of
of the year, where the persons claiming had been deprived the case, the question which we are now examining is
of the benefits of the act of 1830, by reason of the really this, whether a person holding a register's certificate
township plats not having been furnished by the surveyor- without a patent, can recover the land as against the
general, and where, nevertheless, proofs of the claim hadUnited States.
Page 14
power of disposing of, and making needful rules and
We think it unnecessary to go into a detailed examination regulations respecting it. Congress has declared, as we
of the various acts of Congress, for the purpose of have said, by its legislation, that in such a case as this a
showing what we consider to be true in regard to thepatent is necessary to complete the title. But in this case
public lands, that with the exception of a few cases, no patent has issued; and therefore by the laws of the
nothing but a patent passes a perfect and consummate United States the legal title has not passed, *517 but
title. One class of cases to be excepted is where an act of remains in the United States. Now if it were competent
Congress grants land, as is sometimes done in words of for a state legislature to say, that notwithstanding this, the
present grant. But we need not go into these exceptions. title shall be deemed to have passed; the effect of this
The general rule is what we have stated; and it applies as would be, not that Congress had the power of disposing of
well to pre-emptions as to other purchases of public lands. the public lands, and prescribing the rules and regulations
Thus it will appear by the very act of 1836 which we haveconcerning that disposition, but that Illinois possessed it.
been examining, that patents are to issue in pre-emption That would be to make the laws of Illinois paramount to
cases. This then being the case, and this suit having been those of Congress, in relation to a subject confided by the
in effect against the United States; to hold that the party Constitution to Congress only. And the practical result in
could recover as against them, would be to hold that a this very case would be, by force of state legislation to
party having an inchoate and imperfect title could recovertake from the United States their own land, against their
against the one in whom resided the perfect title. This, as own will, and against their own laws. We hold the true
a general proposition of law, unquestionably, cannot be principle to be this, that whenever the question in any
Court, state or federal, is, whether a title to land which
maintained.
had once been the property of the United States has
But it is argued that a law of the state of Illinois declares passed, that question must be resolved by the laws of the
that a Register's certificate shall be deemed evidence of United States; but that whenever, according to those laws,
title in the party sufficient to recover possession of the the title shall have passed, then that property, like all other
lands described in such certificate, in any action of property in the state, is subject to state legislation; so far
ejectment or forcible entry and detainer; but the same law as that legislation is consistent with the admission that the
declares that this shall be the case, unless a better legal title passed and vested according to the laws of the United
and paramount title be exhibited for the same. Upon the States.
construction of the law itself it would not apply to this
case, because the United States not having parted with a **18 It was urged at the bar, that the case of Ross vs. Doe
consummate legal title by issuing a patent, a better legal on the demise of Barland and others, in this Court, 1
and paramount title was exhibited for the same. Where Peters, 656, sustained the ground taken as to the
that was not the case, but the suit should be against any obligatory force of the law of Illinois. A very brief
person not having the right of possession, or against a examination of that case will show that it falls greatly
trespasser, these are the kinds of cases in which it would short of what it is supposed to decide. That was a conflict
seem to us, by the proper construction of the act, that it between two patentees, both claiming under the United
States. The elder patent was founded upon a certificate of
was intended to operate.
the Register of the land office west of Pearl river. The
A much stronger ground however has been taken in junior patent was issued on a certificate of the board of
argument. It has been said that the state of Illinois has a Commissioners west of Pearl river. The Court below
right to declare by law that a title derived from the United instructed the jury that the junior patent of the plaintiff in
States, which by their laws is only inchoate and imperfect,ejectment, emanating upon a certificate for a donation
shall be deemed as perfect a title as if a patent had issued claim prior in date to the patent under which the
from the United States; and the construction of her own defendant claimed, would overreach the elder patent of
Courts seems to give that effect to her statute. That state the defendant, and in point of law, prevail against it. It
has an-undoubted right to legislate as she may please in appears, that by the mode of proceeding in Mississippi,
regard to the remedies to be prosecuted in her Courts, and they look beyond the grant. This Court, remarking upon
to regulate the disposition of the property of her citizens that, said, that in so doing, and in applying their peculiar
by descent, devise, or alienation. But the property inmode of proceeding to titles derived through and under
question was a part of the public domain of the United the laws of the United States, they violated no provisions
States: Congress is invested by the Constitution with the of any statute of the United States.
Page 15
But the Court then proceeded to say: The important Upon the whole, we are of opinion that the judgment of
question in the case is this; in applying its own principles the Supreme Court of Illinois is erroneous: it is, therefore,
and practice in the action of ejectment, as might well bereversed, with costs.
done in this case, has the Court misconstrued the act of
Congress in deciding that the grant of the plaintiff, This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the
emanating upon the donation certificate of the foard ofrecord from the Supreme Court of the state of Illinois, and
Commissioners west of Pearl river set forth in the record, was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is
would overreach the defendant's grant, and should prevailordered and adjudged by this Court, that the judgment of
against it in the action of ejectment. They then proceed to the said Supreme Court in this cause be, and the same is
examine the various acts of Congress upon the subject; hereby, reversed and annulled, with costs; and that this
declare their opinion to be, that the determination of thecause be, and the same is hereby, remanded to the said
Commissioners was final; and come to the conclusion,Supreme Court, that such further proceedings may be had
that the Supreme Court of Mississippi had *518 nottherein, in conformity to the opinion and judgment of this
misconstrued the acts of Congress, from which the rights Court, and as to law and justice may appertain.
of the parties were derived; and, consequently, affirmed
the judgment. Thus it will appear, that in that case, whilst U.S.,1839
the form and mode of proceeding by the law ofWilcox v. Jackson ex dem. McConnel
Mississippi were recognised, yet the rights of the parties38 U.S. 498, 13 Pet. 498, 1839 WL 4329 (U.S.Ill.), 10
depended exclusively upon the construction of acts of L.Ed. 264
Congress; and that this Court thought that the Court
below had construed them correctly. This case, then,
affords no countenance whatever to the argument foundedEND OF DOCUMENT
upon it.
2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.
Date of Printing: Aug 07, 2010

KEYCITE
Wilcox v. Jackson ex dem. McConnel, 38 U.S. 498, 13 Pet. 498, 1839 WL 4329, 10 L.Ed. 264 (U.S.Ill.,Jan
Term 1839)
History
Direct History
1 Jackson ex dem. McConnell v. Wilcox, 1 Scam. 344, 2 Ill. 344, 1837 WL 2358 (Ill. Jun Term 1837)
Reversed by
=>
2 Wilcox v. Jackson ex dem. McConnel, 38 U.S. 498, 13 Pet. 498, 1839 WL 4329, 10 L.Ed. 264
(U.S.Ill. Jan Term 1839)
Negative Citing References (U.S.A.)

Distinguished by
3 Pierce v. Frace, 2 Wash. 81, 26 P. 192 (Wash. Feb 11, 1891) (NO. 64)
4 U.S. v. Winona & St. P.R. Co., 67 F. 948, 15 C.C.A. 96 (C.C.A.8 (Minn.) May 06, 1895) (NO. 564)

KEYCITE
Wilcox v. Jackson ex dem. McConnel, 38 U.S. 498, 13 Pet. 498, 1839 WL 4329, 10 L.Ed. 264 (U.S.Ill., Jan
Term 1839)

KEYCITE
Wilcox v. Jackson ex dem. McConnel, 38 U.S. 498, 13 Pet. 498, 1839 WL 4329, 10 L.Ed. 264 (U.S.Ill. Jan
Term 1839)
Citing References
Negative Cases (U.S.A.)
Distinguished by
1 U.S. v. Winona & St. P.R. Co., 67 F. 948, 956, 15 C.C.A. 96, 96 (C.C.A.8 (Minn.) May 06, 1895)
(NO. 564)
2 Pierce v. Frace, 26 P. 192, 195+, 2 Wash. 81, 94+ (Wash. Feb 11, 1891) (NO. 64) "
Positive Cases (U.S.A.)

Examined
3 Home on the Range v. AT&T Corp., 386 F.Supp.2d 999, 1003+ (S.D.Ind. Sep 07, 2005) (NO. 1:99ML-9313-DFH-TAB, MDL 1313) "
Discussed
4 Oregon ex rel. State Land Bd. v. Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co., 97 S.Ct. 582, 587+, 429 U.S. 363,
371+, 50 L.Ed.2d 550, 550+, 7 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,137, 20137+ (U.S.Or. Jan 12, 1977) (NO. 75-567,
75-577)
5 U.S. v. Lee, 1 S.Ct. 240, 253+, 106 U.S. 196, 211+, 16 Otto 196, 196+, 27 L.Ed. 171, 171+ (U.S.Va.
Dec 04, 1882)
6 U.S. v. Farden, 1878 WL 18340, *4+, 99 U.S. 10, 15+, 9 Otto 10, 10+, 25 L.Ed. 267, 267+
(U.S.Ct.Cl. Oct Term 1878)
7 Foley v. Harrison, 1853 WL 7635, *6+, 56 U.S. 433, 439+, 15 How. 433, 433+, 14 L.Ed. 761, 761+
(U.S.La. Dec Term 1853)
8 Lytle v. Arkansas, 1850 WL 6924, *5+, 50 U.S. 314, 320+, 9 How. 314, 314+, 13 L.Ed. 153, 153+
(U.S.Ark. Jan Term 1850)
9 U.S. v. Fitzgerald, 1841 WL 5021, *4+, 40 U.S. 407, 414+, 15 Pet. 407, 407+, 10 L.Ed. 785, 785+
(U.S.La. Jan Term 1841)
10 U.S. v. Tichenor, 12 F. 415, 421+, 8 Sawy. 142, 142+ (C.C.D.Or. Jun 05, 1882)
11 Law v. U.S., 11 F.3d 1061, 1066+ (Fed.Cir. Dec 13, 1993) (NO. 92-5165)
12 Wilbur v. U.S. ex rel. Barton, 46 F.2d 217, 219+, 60 App.D.C. 11, 13+ (App.D.C. Dec 01, 1930)
(NO. 5241) "
13 Yunis v. U.S., 118 F.Supp.2d 1024, 1031+ (C.D.Cal. Jul 24, 2000) (NO. CV 97-7863 RAP) "
14 Lee v. Kaufman, 15 F.Cas. 162, 186+, 3 Hughes 36, 36+, 17 Alb. L.J. 237, 237+, 24 Int.Rev.Rec. 90,
90+, No. 8191, 8191+ (C.C.E.D.Va. Mar 15, 1879)
15 Law v. U.S., 26 Cl.Ct. 382, 389+ (Cl.Ct. Jun 30, 1992) (NO. 91-1478C) "
16 Doll v. Meador, 16 Cal. 295, 305+, 1860 WL 952, *7+ (Cal. Oct Term 1860)
17 Waterman v. Smith, 13 Cal. 373, 386+, 1859 WL 1012, *9+ (Cal. Apr Term 1859)
18 Fremont County v. Burlington & M.R.R. Co., 22 Iowa 91, 95+, 1867 WL 65, *2+ (Iowa Apr 12,
1867)
19 Albritton v. Shaw, 87 So. 32, 35+, 148 La. 427, 434+ (La. Nov 12, 1920) (NO. 23927)
20 Knox v. Pulliam, 14 La.Ann. 123, 127+, 1859 WL 6034, *7+ (La. Feb 1859)
21 Foley v. Harrison, 5 La.Ann. 75, 78+, 1850 WL 114, *2+ (La. Jan 1850)
22 Dreux v. Kennedy, 12 Rob. (LA) 489, 497+, 1846 WL 1352, *6+ (La. Jan 1846) "
23 Hannibal & St. J.R. Co. v. Smith, 41 Mo. 310, 325+, 1867 WL 73, *9+ (Mo. Aug Term 1867) "
24 Kissell v. Board, etc., of St. Louis Public Schools, 16 Mo. 553, 563+, 1852 WL 16, *8+ (Mo. Oct
Term 1852)
25 Coombs' Lessee v. Lane, 1854 WL 65, *8+, 4 Ohio St. 112, 125+ (Ohio Dec Term 1854) "
26 City of Brownsville v. Basse, 36 Tex. 461, 461+, 1871 WL 145, *1+ (Tex. 1871) "
27 Spaulding v. Martin, 11 Wis. 262, 269+, 1860 WL 4594, *6+ (Wis. Jun 04, 1860) "
Cited
28 California ex rel. State Lands Com'n v. U. S., 102 S.Ct. 2432, 2438, 457 U.S. 273, 281, 73 L.Ed.2d
1, 1 (U.S. Jun 18, 1982) (NO. 89, ORIGINAL)
29 Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 99 S.Ct. 2529, 2539, 442 U.S. 653, 670, 61 L.Ed.2d 153, 153
(U.S.Iowa Jun 20, 1979) (NO. 78-160, 78-161)
30 Wallis v. Pan Am. Petroleum Corp., 86 S.Ct. 1301, 1305, 384 U.S. 63, 71, 16 L.Ed.2d 369, 369
(U.S.La. Apr 25, 1966) (NO. 341)
31 U.S. v. O'Donnell, 58 S.Ct. 708, 714, 303 U.S. 501, 510, 82 L.Ed. 980, 980 (U.S.Cal. Mar 28, 1938)
(NO. 487)
32 U.S. v. State of Oregon, 55 S.Ct. 610, 621, 295 U.S. 1, 28, 79 L.Ed. 1267, 1267, 1935 A.M.C. 594,
594 (U.S.Or. Apr 01, 1935) (NO. 13)
33 Myers v. U.S., 47 S.Ct. 21, 25, 272 U.S. 52, 117, 71 L.Ed. 160, 160 (U.S.Ct.Cl. Oct 25, 1926) (NO.
2)
34 U.S. v. State of Minnesota, 46 S.Ct. 298, 305, 270 U.S. 181, 206, 70 L.Ed. 539, 539 (U.S.Minn. Mar
01, 1926) (NO. 17, ORIGINAL)
35 U.S. ex rel. French v. Weeks, 42 S.Ct. 505, 508, 259 U.S. 326, 334, 66 L.Ed. 965, 965 (U.S.Dist.Col.
May 29, 1922) (NO. 724)
36 State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 42 S.Ct. 406, 417, 258 U.S. 574, 602, 66 L.Ed. 771, 771
(U.S.Okla. May 01, 1922) (NO. 20)
37 Payne v. Central Pac. Ry. Co., 41 S.Ct. 314, 317, 255 U.S. 228, 238, 65 L.Ed. 598, 598
(U.S.Dist.Col. Feb 28, 1921) (NO. 17)
38 Ruddy v. Rossi, 39 S.Ct. 46, 48+, 248 U.S. 104, 110+, 63 L.Ed. 148, 148+, 8 A.L.R. 843, 843+
(U.S.Idaho Dec 09, 1918) (NO. 17) " (in dissent)
39 Salt Lake Inv. Co. v. Oregon Short Line R. Co., 38 S.Ct. 348, 349, 246 U.S. 446, 447, 62 L.Ed. 823,
823 (U.S.Utah Apr 15, 1918) (NO. 29)
40 Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Wismer, 38 S.Ct. 240, 242, 246 U.S. 283, 288, 62 L.Ed. 716, 716
(U.S.Wash. Mar 04, 1918) (NO. 152)
41 Utah Power & Light Co. v. U.S., 37 S.Ct. 387, 389, 243 U.S. 389, 405, 61 L.Ed. 791, 791 (U.S.Utah
Mar 19, 1917) (NO. 202, 204, 206, 203, 205, 207)
42 U.S. v. Morrison, 36 S.Ct. 326, 334+, 240 U.S. 192, 212+, 60 L.Ed. 599, 599+ (U.S.Or. Feb 21,
1916) (NO. 138)
43 U.S. v. Midwest Oil Co., 35 S.Ct. 309, 321, 236 U.S. 459, 492, 59 L.Ed. 673, 673 (U.S.Wyo. Feb 23,
1915) (NO. 278) (in dissent)
44 Buchser v. Buchser, 34 S.Ct. 46, 46, 231 U.S. 157, 161, 58 L.Ed. 166, 166 (U.S.Wash. Nov 17,
1913) (NO. 641) "
45 U.S. v. Grimaud, 31 S.Ct. 480, 485, 220 U.S. 506, 521, 55 L.Ed. 563, 563 (U.S.Cal. May 01, 1911)
(NO. 241, 242)
46 U.S. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 31 S.Ct. 7, 11, 218 U.S. 233, 243, 54 L.Ed. 1015, 1015
(U.S.Iowa Oct 17, 1910) (NO. 11)
47 Northern Lumber Co. v. O'Brien, 27 S.Ct. 249, 251, 204 U.S. 190, 198, 51 L.Ed. 438, 438
(U.S.Minn. Jan 14, 1907) (NO. 121)
48 McCune v. Essig, 26 S.Ct. 78, 80, 199 U.S. 382, 390, 50 L.Ed. 237, 237 (U.S.Wash. Nov 27, 1905)
(NO. 61)
49 Scott v. Carew, 25 S.Ct. 193, 196+, 196 U.S. 100, 109+, 49 L.Ed. 403, 403+ (U.S.Fla. Jan 03, 1905)
(NO. 52)
50 Bockfinger v. Foster, 23 S.Ct. 836, 839+, 190 U.S. 116, 125+, 47 L.Ed. 975, 975+ (U.S.Okla. Jun 01,
1903) (NO. 175)
51 Kean v. Calumet Canal & Improvement Co., 23 S.Ct. 651, 661+, 190 U.S. 452, 484+, 47 L.Ed. 1134,
1134+ (U.S.Ind. May 04, 1903) (NO. 8) (in dissent)
52 Clark v. Herington, 22 S.Ct. 872, 874, 186 U.S. 206, 210, 46 L.Ed. 1128, 1128 (U.S.Kan. Jun 02,
1902) (NO. 223)
53 Tindal v. Wesley, 17 S.Ct. 770, 774, 167 U.S. 204, 214, 42 L.Ed. 137, 137 (U.S.S.C. May 10, 1897)
(NO. 231)
54 Carter v. Ruddy, 17 S.Ct. 640, 641+, 166 U.S. 493, 495+, 41 L.Ed. 1090, 1090+ (U.S.Idaho Apr 19,
1897) (NO. 250)
55 Gonzales v. French, 17 S.Ct. 102, 105, 164 U.S. 338, 345, 41 L.Ed. 458, 458 (U.S.Ariz. Nov 30,
1896) (NO. 34)
56 Shiver v. U.S., 16 S.Ct. 54, 55+, 159 U.S. 491, 494+, 40 L.Ed. 231, 231+ (U.S.Ala. Nov 11, 1895)
(NO. 548) "
57 Orchard v. Alexander, 15 S.Ct. 635, 637, 157 U.S. 372, 377, 39 L.Ed. 737, 737 (U.S.Wash. Apr 01,
1895) (NO. 192, 193)
58 Wood v. Beach, 15 S.Ct. 410, 411, 156 U.S. 548, 550, 39 L.Ed. 528, 528 (U.S.Kan. Mar 04, 1895)
(NO. 143)
59 Lake Superior Ship Canal, Railway & Iron Co. v. Cunningham, 15 S.Ct. 103, 110, 155 U.S. 354,
373, 39 L.Ed. 183, 183 (U.S.Mich. Dec 10, 1894) (NO. 49)
60 Hegler v. Faulkner, 14 S.Ct. 779, 781, 153 U.S. 109, 117, 38 L.Ed. 653, 653 (U.S.Neb. Apr 23, 1894)
(NO. 166)
61 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Roberts, 14 S.Ct. 496, 498, 152 U.S. 114, 119, 38 L.Ed. 377, 377
(U.S.Kan. Mar 05, 1894) (NO. 230)
62 Cameron v. U. S., 13 S.Ct. 595, 599, 148 U.S. 301, 309, 37 L.Ed. 459, 459 (U.S.Ariz. Mar 27, 1893)
(NO. 42)
63 Monroe Cattle Co. v. Becker, 13 S.Ct. 217, 221, 147 U.S. 47, 57, 37 L.Ed. 72, 72 (U.S.Tex. Jan 03,
1893) (NO. 87)
64 Bardon v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 12 S.Ct. 856, 857+, 145 U.S. 535, 539+, 36 L.Ed. 806, 806+
(U.S.Wis. May 16, 1892)
65 Hastings & D.R. Co. v. Whitney, 10 S.Ct. 112, 114, 132 U.S. 357, 360, 33 L.Ed. 363, 363
(U.S.Minn. Dec 09, 1889)
66 Doolan v. Carr, 8 S.Ct. 1228, 1231+, 125 U.S. 618, 625+, 31 L.Ed. 844, 844+ (U.S.Cal. Nov 21,
1887)
67 Runkle v. U.S., 7 S.Ct. 1141, 1147, 122 U.S. 543, 557, 30 L.Ed. 1167, 1167 (U.S.Ct.Cl. May 27,
1887)
68 McElrath v. U.S., 1880 WL 18929, *5, 102 U.S. 426, 426, 12 Otto 426, 426, 26 L.Ed. 189, 189
(U.S.Ct.Cl. Oct Term 1880)
69 Wolsey v. Chapman, 1879 WL 16626, *12+, 101 U.S. 755, 769+, 11 Otto 755, 755+, 25 L.Ed. 915,
915+ (U.S.Iowa Oct Term 1879) "
70 Ryan v. Central Pac. R. Co., 1878 WL 18273, *3, 99 U.S. 382, 385, 9 Otto 382, 382, 25 L.Ed. 305,
305 (U.S.Cal. Oct Term 1878)
71 Central Colorado Imp Co v. Board of County Com'rs of Pueblo County, 1877 WL 18544, *4, 95 U.S.
259, 263, 5 Otto 259, 259, 24 L.Ed. 495, 495 (U.S.Colo. Oct Term 1877)
72 Beecher v. Wetherby, 1877 WL 18561, *3, 95 U.S. 517, 520, 5 Otto 517, 517, 24 L.Ed. 440, 440
(U.S.Wis. Oct Term 1877)
73 Leavenworth, L. & G.R. Co. v. U.S., 1875 WL 17795, *5+, 92 U.S. 733, 739+, 2 Otto 733, 733+, 23
L.Ed. 634, 634+ (U.S.Kan. Oct Term 1875)
74 The Confiscation Cases, 1873 WL 15970, *11, 87 U.S. 92, 109, 22 L.Ed. 320, 320, 20 Wall. 92, 92
(U.S.La. Oct Term 1873)
75 Branson v. Wirth, 1872 WL 15282, *5, 84 U.S. 32, 37, 21 L.Ed. 566, 566, 17 Wall. 32, 32 (U.S.Ill.
Dec Term 1872)
76 Gibson v. Chouteau, 1871 WL 14843, *9, 80 U.S. 92, 104, 20 L.Ed. 534, 534, 13 Wall. 92, 92
(U.S.Mo. Dec Term 1871)
77 Johnson v. Towsley, 80 U.S. 72, 77, 2 Neb. 484, 484, 1871 WL 14804, *5, 20 L.Ed. 485, 485, 13
Wall. 72, 72 (U.S.Neb. Dec Term 1871)
78 Mumford v. Wardwell, 1867 WL 11188, *5, 73 U.S. 423, 430, 18 L.Ed. 756, 756, 6 Wall. 423, 423
(U.S.Cal. Dec Term 1867)
79 State of Minnesota v. Bachelder, 1863 WL 6624, *4, 68 U.S. 109, 112, 17 L.Ed. 551, 551, 1 Wall.
109, 109 (U.S.Minn. Dec Term 1863) "
80 Ohio & M.R. Co. v. Wheeler, 1861 WL 7691, *8, 66 U.S. 286, 295, 1 Black 286, 286, 17 L.Ed. 130,
130 (U.S.Ind. Dec Term 1861)
81 Hale v. Gaines, 1859 WL 10640, *4+, 63 U.S. 144, 149+, 22 How. 144, 144+, 16 L.Ed. 264, 264+
(U.S.Ark. Dec Term 1859)
82 Hooper v. Scheimer, 1859 WL 10573, *7+, 64 U.S. 235, 243+, 23 How. 235, 235+, 16 L.Ed. 452,
452+ (U.S.Ark. Dec Term 1859)
83 French's Lessee v. Spencer, 1858 WL 9384, *3+, 62 U.S. 228, 230+, 21 How. 228, 228+, 16 L.Ed.
97, 97+ (U.S.Ind. Dec Term 1858)
84 Dynes v. Hoover, 1857 WL 8596, *10, 61 U.S. 65, 76, 20 How. 65, 65, 15 L.Ed. 838, 838
(U.S.Dist.Col. Dec Term 1857) "
85 Covington Drawbridge Co. v. Shepherd, 1857 WL 8583, *4, 61 U.S. 227, 231, 20 How. 227, 227, 15
L.Ed. 896, 896 (U.S.Ind. Dec Term 1857)
86 Irvine v. Marshall, 1857 WL 8560, *9, 61 U.S. 558, 570, 20 How. 558, 558, 15 L.Ed. 994, 994
(U.S.Minn. Dec Term 1857) " (in dissent)
87 Barnard v. Ashley, 1855 WL 8203, *2+, 59 U.S. 43, 43+, 18 How. 43, 43+, 15 L.Ed. 285, 285+
(U.S.N.Y. Dec Term 1855)
88 Dodge v. Woolsey, 1855 WL 8235, *33, 59 U.S. 331, 371, 18 How. 331, 331, 15 L.Ed. 401, 401, 3
Ohio F.Dec. 300, 300, 4 A.F.T.R. 4528, 4528 (U.S.Ohio Dec Term 1855) (in dissent)
89 Haydel v. Dufresne, 1854 WL 7481, *1, 58 U.S. 23, 24, 17 How. 23, 23, 15 L.Ed. 115, 115 (U.S.La.
Dec Term 1854)
90 Marshall v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 1853 WL 7690, *13, 57 U.S. 314, 328, 16 How. 314, 314, 14
L.Ed. 953, 953 (U.S.Md. Dec Term 1853)
91 Board of Trustees of Vincennes University v. State of Indiana, 1852 WL 6733, *2+, 55 U.S. 268,
269+, 14 How. 268, 268+, 14 L.Ed. 416, 416+ (U.S.Ind. Dec Term 1852) "
92 Campbell v. Doe ex dem. Trustees and Treasurer of Original Surveyed Township No. 1 in Range No.
19, 1851 WL 6682, *2+, 54 U.S. 244, 246+, 13 How. 244, 244+, 14 L.Ed. 130, 130+, 3 Ohio F.Dec.
43, 43+ (U.S.Ohio Dec Term 1851)
93 U.S. v. Hughes, 1850 WL 6828, *7, 52 U.S. 552, 559, 11 How. 552, 552, 13 L.Ed. 809, 809 (U.S.La.
Dec Term 1850)
94 League v. De Young, 1850 WL 6836, *4, 52 U.S. 185, 190, 11 How. 185, 185, 13 L.Ed. 657, 657
(U.S.Tex. Dec Term 1850)
95 Doe ex dem. Barbarie v. Eslava, 1850 WL 6908, *14+, 50 U.S. 421, 437+, 9 How. 421, 421+, 13
L.Ed. 200, 200+ (U.S.Ala. Jan Term 1850)
96 Surgett v. Lapice, 1850 WL 6821, *15, 49 U.S. 48, 63, 8 How. 48, 48, 12 L.Ed. 982, 982 (U.S.La.
Jan Term 1850)
97 Menard's Heirs v. Massey, 1850 WL 6840, *7, 49 U.S. 293, 299, 8 How. 293, 293, 12 L.Ed. 1085,
1085 (U.S.Mo. Jan Term 1850)
98 Williamson v. Berry, 1850 WL 6852, *21+, 49 U.S. 495, 518+, 8 How. 495, 495+, 12 L.Ed. 1170,
1170+ (U.S.N.Y. Jan Term 1850)
99 U.S. v. City of Chicago, 1849 WL 6424, *1+, 48 U.S. 185, 185+, 7 How. 185, 185+, 12 L.Ed. 660,
660+ (U.S.Ill. Jan Term 1849)
100 Scott v. Jones, 1847 WL 5967, *11, 46 U.S. 343, 354, 5 How. 343, 343, 12 L.Ed. 181, 181
(U.S.Mich. Jan Term 1847)
101 U.S. v. Boyd, 1847 WL 5985, *19, 46 U.S. 29, 47, 5 How. 29, 29, 12 L.Ed. 36, 36 (U.S.Miss. Jan
Term 1847)
102 Brown's Lessee v. Clements, 1845 WL 5992, *8+, 44 U.S. 650, 657+, 3 How. 650, 650+, 11 L.Ed.
767, 767+ (U.S.Ala. Jan Term 1845)
103 U.S. v. Gear, 1845 WL 6028, *10, 44 U.S. 120, 132, 3 How. 120, 120, 11 L.Ed. 523, 523 (U.S.Ill. Jan
Term 1845)
104 Carroll v. Safford, 1845 WL 5994, *8+, 44 U.S. 441, 448+, 3 How. 441, 441+, 11 L.Ed. 671, 671+
(U.S.Mich. Jan Term 1845) "
105 Hickey's Lessee v. Stewart, 1845 WL 6019, *13, 44 U.S. 750, 763, 3 How. 750, 750, 11 L.Ed. 814,
814 (U.S.Miss. Jan Term 1845)
106 Stoddard v. Chambers, 1844 WL 5958, *23+, 43 U.S. 284, 312+, 2 How. 284, 284+, 11 L.Ed. 269,
269+ (U.S.Mo. Jan Term 1844)
107 City of Mobile v. Eslava, 1842 WL 5749, *12, 41 U.S. 234, 250, 16 Pet. 234, 234, 10 L.Ed. 948, 948
(U.S.Ala. Jan Term 1842)
108 U.S. v. Gratiot, 1840 WL 4638, *5, 39 U.S. 526, 531, 14 Pet. 526, 526, 10 L.Ed. 573, 573 (U.S.Ill.
Jan Term 1840)
109 Head v. Porter, 48 F. 481, 482+ (C.C.D.Mass. Dec 03, 1891)
110 U.S. v. Cutter, 25 F.Cas. 740, 743+, 2 Curt.C.C. 617, 617+, No. 14,911, 14911+ (C.C.D.N.H. Oct
Term 1856)
111 U S v. Ames, 24 F.Cas. 784, 787, 1 Woodb. & M. 76, 76, 9 Law Rep. 295, 295, No. 14,441, 14441
(C.C.D.Mass. Oct Term 1845)
112 Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Quereau, 289 F. 767, 772 (C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) Mar 19, 1923) (NO. 192)
113 Maresca v. U.S., 277 F. 727, 735 (C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) Sep 27, 1921) (NO. 190)
114 Motherwell v. U S ex rel Alexandroff, 107 F. 437, 452, 48 C.C.A. 97, 97 (C.C.A.3 (Pa.) Feb 25,
1901) (NO. 22) (in dissent)
115 Updegraff v. Talbott, 221 F.2d 342, 346 (4th Cir.(Va.) Apr 12, 1955) (NO. 6912)
116 McKenna v. Wallis, 344 F.2d 432, 433 (5th Cir.(La.) Jan 21, 1964) (NO. 19631) "
117 Porter v. Coble, 246 F. 244, 249, 158 C.C.A. 404, 404 (C.C.A.8 (Neb.) Nov 19, 1917) (NO. 4909)
118 U.S. v. Utah Power & Light Co., 209 F. 554, 557+, 126 C.C.A. 376, 376+ (C.C.A.8 (Utah) Nov 14,
1913) (NO. 3992)
119 Rainbow v. Young, 161 F. 835, 838, 88 C.C.A. 653, 653 (C.C.A.8 (Neb.) Jun 08, 1908) (NO. 2642)
120 Stearns v. U.S., 152 F. 900, 903, 82 C.C.A. 48, 48 (C.C.A.8 (Minn.) Feb 01, 1907) (NO. 2411)
121 Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Douglas Co., 31 F. 540, 540 (C.C.D.Neb. 1887)
122 Seymour v. Sanders, 21 F.Cas. 1133, 1135, 3 Dill. 437, 437, No. 12,690, 12690 (C.C.D.Minn. 1874)
123 Larriviere v. Madegan, 14 F.Cas. 1160, 1161, 1 Dill. 455, 455, No. 8096, 8096 (C.C.D.Minn. 1870)
124 Bernard v. Ashley, 3 F.Cas. 272, 274+, Hempst. 665, 665+, No. 1346, 1346+ (C.C.D.Ark. Apr Term
1853)
125 Arnold v. Morton, 529 F.2d 1101, 1105 (9th Cir.(Alaska) Jan 23, 1976) (NO. 74-2218)
126 Mason v. U.S., 218 F.2d 375, 380 (9th Cir.(Cal.) Dec 09, 1954) (NO. 14286)
127 Osborne v. U.S., 145 F.2d 892, 894+ (C.C.A.9 (Ariz.) Nov 24, 1944) (NO. 10755)
128 U.S. v. Walker River Irr. Dist., 104 F.2d 334, 338 (C.C.A.9 (Nev.) Jun 05, 1939) (NO. 8779)
129 Bourdieu v. Pacific Western Oil Co., 80 F.2d 774, 778 (C.C.A.9 (Cal.) Dec 20, 1935) (NO. 7808)
130 Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. of Idaho v. U.S., 218 F. 288, 295+, 134 C.C.A. 84, 84+ (C.C.A.9
(Idaho) Nov 02, 1914) (NO. 2351)
131 U. S. v. Fickett, 205 F. 134, 137+, 123 C.C.A. 366, 366+ (C.C.A.9 (Ariz.) May 05, 1913) (NO. 2127)
132 Buchser v. Morss, 202 F. 854, 856, 121 C.C.A. 212, 212 (C.C.A.9 (Wash.) Feb 03, 1913) (NO. 2151)
"
133 Perovich v. Perry, 167 F. 789, 791, 93 C.C.A. 209, 209, 3 Alaska Fed. 279, 282 (C.C.A.9 (Alaska)
Feb 01, 1909) (NO. 1567)
134 Columbia Valley R. Co. v. Portland & S. Ry. Co., 162 F. 603, 605, 89 C.C.A. 361, 361 (C.C.A.9
(Wash.) May 04, 1908) (NO. 1500) "
135 Shannon v. U.S., 160 F. 870, 873, 88 C.C.A. 52, 52 (C.C.A.9 (Mont.) Feb 03, 1908) (NO. 1489)
136 De Laittre v. Board of Com'rs, 149 F. 800, 804 (C.C.D.Or. Jan 14, 1907) (NO. 3104) "
137 Winters v. U.S., 143 F. 740, 748+, 74 C.C.A. 666, 666+ (C.C.A.9 (Mont.) Feb 05, 1906) (NO. 1243)
138 U.S. v. Tully, 140 F. 899, 901+ (C.C.D.Mont. Sep 23, 1905)
139 Gibson v. Anderson, 131 F. 39, 42, 65 C.C.A. 277, 277 (C.C.A.9 (Wash.) May 03, 1904)
140 U.S. v. Blendaur, 128 F. 910, 913+, 63 C.C.A. 636, 636+ (C.C.A.9 (Mont.) Mar 01, 1904) (NO. 973)
141 McCune v. Essig, 122 F. 588, 590, 59 C.C.A. 429, 429 (C.C.A.9 (Wash.) May 04, 1903) (NO. 924) "
142 McCune v. Essig, 118 F. 273, 275+ (C.C.D.Wash. Oct 29, 1902) (NO. 954) "
143 U.S. v. Tygh Valley Land & Live-Stock Co., 76 F. 693, 694 (C.C.D.Or. Sep 26, 1896)
144 U.S. v. Oregon & C.R. Co., 69 F. 899, 901 (C.C.D.Or. Sep 09, 1895) (NO. 1982) "
145 Stimson Land Co. v. Rawson, 62 F. 426, 430 (C.C.D.Wash. Jul 05, 1894) (NO. 156)
146 Spokane Falls & N. Ry. Co. v. Ziegler, 61 F. 392, 394, 9 C.C.A. 548, 548 (C.C.A.9 (Wash.) Apr 12,
1894) (NO. 81)
147 Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Maclay, 61 F. 554, 556, 9 C.C.A. 609, 609 (C.C.A.9 (Mont.) Apr 02, 1894)
(NO. 88)
148 Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Cannon, 54 F. 252, 255+, 4 C.C.A. 303, 303+ (C.C.A.9 (Mont.) Jan 23,
1893) (NO. 52)
149 Hershberger v. Blewett, 55 F. 170, 180 (C.C.D.Wash. Dec 07, 1892) (NO. 25)
150 Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Sanders, 49 F. 129, 137, 1 C.C.A. 192, 192 (C.C.A.9 (Mont.) Jan 25, 1892)
151 U.S. v. McGraw, 12 F. 449, 452, 8 Sawy. 156, 156 (C.C.D.Or. Jun 1882)
152 Pittsburg & Midway Coal Min. Co. v. Yazzie, 909 F.2d 1387, 1402 (10th Cir.(N.M.) May 30, 1990)
(NO. 88-2413, 88-8071)
153 Smith v. U.S., 593 F.2d 982, 984 (10th Cir.(Okla.) Mar 13, 1979) (NO. 77-1214, 77-1215)
154 Kansas Pac. Ry. Co. v. Atchison, T. & S.F.R. Co., 13 F. 106, 107, 2 McCrary 550, 550 (C.C.D.Kan.
Jan 1881)
155 Mobil Oil Corp. v. Coastal Petroleum Co., 671 F.2d 419, 425 (11th Cir.(Fla.) Mar 04, 1982) (NO. 815533, 81-5812)
156 Hash v. U.S., 403 F.3d 1308, 1315, 35 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,072, 20072 (Fed.Cir.(Idaho) Apr 04, 2005)
(NO. 03-1395)
157 Bendix Aviation Corp., Bendix Radio Division v. F.C.C., 272 F.2d 533, 533, 32 P.U.R.3d 435, 435,
106 U.S.App.D.C. 304, 304 (D.C.Cir. Nov 13, 1959) (NO. 159035, 14650, 14693)
158 West v. Lyders, 36 F.2d 108, 110+, 59 App.D.C. 122, 124+ (App.D.C. Nov 04, 1929) (NO. 4783) "
159 Weeks v. U.S. ex rel. Creary, 277 F. 594, 599, 51 App.D.C. 195, 200 (App.D.C. Jan 03, 1922) (NO.
3693)
160 Hitchcock v. U.S. ex rel. Bigboy, 22 App.D.C. 275, 280, 1903 WL 18623, *3 (App.D.C. Jun 25,
1903) (NO. 1294)
161 U.S. ex rel. Wedderburn v. Bliss, 12 App.D.C. 485, 491, 1898 WL 15613, *4 (App.D.C. Apr 04,
1898) (NO. 758)
162 Twin City Nat. Bank of New Brighton v. Nebeker, 3 App.D.C. 190, 193, 1894 WL 11849, *3
(App.D.C. Apr 16, 1894) (NO. 250)
163 U.S. v. Turner, 54 F. 228, 229 (C.C.S.D.Ala. Dec 27, 1892)
164 U.S. v. Garretson, 42 F. 22, 24 (C.C.S.D.Ala. Mar 20, 1890) "
165 U.S. v. Schaub, 103 F.Supp. 873, 873, 13 Alaska 640, 640 (D.Alaska Apr 03, 1952) (NO. 3174)
166 U. S. v. 348.62 Acres of Land in Anchorage Recording Dist., 1943 WL 1239, *6+, 10 Alaska 351,
363+ (D.Alaska Terr. 1943) "
167 Grosvold v. Whelpley, 1916 WL 301, *2, 5 Alaska 529, 532 (D.Alaska Terr. Aug 12, 1916) (NO.
804) "
168 Gavigan v. Crary, 1905 WL 334, *4, 2 Alaska 370, 380 (D.Alaska Feb 11, 1905) (NO. 75)
169 Crawford v. Burr, 1903 WL 305, *1, 2 Alaska 33, 35 (D.Alaska Feb 16, 1903) (NO. 5)
170 Behrends v. Goldsteen, 1902 WL 559, *4, 1 Alaska 518, 524 (D.Alaska Mar 29, 1902) (NO. 931)
171 U.S. v. Payne, 8 F. 883, 893+, 2 McCrary 289, 289+ (W.D.Ark. 1881)
172 Secretary of Housing and Urban Dev. v. Sky Meadow Asso., 117 F.Supp.2d 970, 977+ (C.D.Cal. Jul
24, 2000) (NO. CV 98-1842 RAP) "
173 Southern Pac. R. Co. v. Ambler Grain & Milling Co., 57 F.2d 536, 539 (S.D.Cal. Mar 18, 1932) (NO.
Q-46-C)
174 U.S. v. Watkins, 22 F.2d 437, 440 (N.D.Cal. Oct 18, 1927) (NO. 18893)
175 Rosenberg Bros. & Co. v. U.S. Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp., 295 F. 372, 377+, 1924
A.M.C. 170+ (N.D.Cal. Dec 26, 1923) (NO. 17692, 17693)
176 Apis v. U.S., 88 F. 931, 940 (S.D.Cal. Feb 21, 1898) (NO. 846)
177 Hibberd v. Slack, 84 F. 571, 575 (C.C.S.D.Cal. Dec 06, 1897) (NO. 696)
178 In re Neagle, 39 F. 833, 860, 14 Sawy. 232, 232, 5 L.R.A. 78, 78 (C.C.N.D.Cal. Sep 16, 1889)
179 Hargett v. Summerfield, 137 F.Supp. 876, 878 (D.D.C Feb 06, 1956) (NO. CIV. 4009-55)
180 U.S. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. of Idaho, 207 F. 164, 172+ (D.Idaho Apr 01, 1913)
181 State of Illinois v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 33 F. 730, 733 (C.C.N.D.Ill. Feb 23, 1888)
182 Wilson Packing Co. v. Hunter, 30 F.Cas. 253, 253, 4 Ban. & A. 184, 184, 8 Biss. 429, 429, 11
Chi.Leg.N. 207, 207, 25 Int.Rev.Rec. 137, 137, 8 Cent. L.J. 333, 333, No. 17,852, 17852
(C.C.S.D.Ill. Mar 1879)
183 U.S. v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 26 F.Cas. 461, 461, 2 Biss. 174, 174, 5 Am. Law T. Rep. 309, 309, 1
Chi.Leg.N. 427, 427, No. 15,437, 15437 (C.C.N.D.Ill. Aug 1869)
184 U.S. v. Railroad Bridge Co., 27 F.Cas. 686, 690, 6 McLean 517, 517, No. 16,114, 16114, 3 Liv.Law
Mag. 568, 568 (C.C.N.D.Ill. Jul Term 1855)
185 U.S. v. Delta Development Co., 322 F.Supp. 121, 128+ (E.D.La. Nov 16, 1970) (NO. CIV. 69-74)
186 Faustine Hawkins-El v. County Of Wayne, 2008 WL 474095, *1 (E.D.Mich. Feb 19, 2008) (NO. 0810652)
187 HYlak v. Bieszk, 2007 WL 3253194, *5 (W.D.Mich. Nov 02, 2007) (NO. 1:07-CV-421) "
188 Thompkins-El v. Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, 2006 WL 2433438, *3 (E.D.Mich. Aug 22, 2006)
(NO. CIV. 05-74715) "
189 BF Partners, LLC. v. Estate of McSorley, 2005 WL 1335150, *3+ (W.D.Mich. Jun 06, 2005) (NO.
103CV353)
190 U.S. v. Grand Rapids & I.R. Co., 154 F. 131, 135+ (C.C.W.D.Mich. May 25, 1907)
191 Lake Superior Ship Canal, Railway & Iron Co. v. Cunningham, 44 F. 819, 830 (C.C.W.D.Mich. Feb
1890)
192 U.S. v. Blendauer, 122 F. 703, 707+ (D.Mont. May 18, 1903) (NO. 101) "
193 101 Ranch v. U.S., 714 F.Supp. 1005, 1016 (D.N.D. Oct 28, 1988) (NO. CIV.A2-81-89)
194 Rice v. U.S., 348 F.Supp. 254, 257 (D.N.D. Sep 29, 1972) (NO. CIV. 1127)
195 Peterson v. Morton, 465 F.Supp. 986, 1001 (D.Nev. Jan 31, 1979) (NO. CIV. LV-1926)
196 U.S. v. Badeau, 31 F. 697, 699 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. Jul 06, 1887)
197 Dutilh v. Maxwell, 8 F.Cas. 168, 169, 2 Blatchf. 541, 541, No. 4207, 4207 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. Feb 1853)
198 U.S. v. State Bank of Winfield, Kan., 60 F.Supp. 335, 340 (E.D.Okla. Oct 23, 1944) (NO. 509)
199 U.S. v. Praeger, 149 F. 474, 485 (W.D.Tex. Jan 02, 1907) (NO. 1920) "
200 Baltimore & O.R. Co. v. Allen, 17 F. 171, 195 (C.C.W.D.Va. May 15, 1883) (in dissent)
201 Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Mitchell, 208 F. 469, 472+ (E.D.Wash. Jan 10, 1913) (NO. 1539)
202 U.S. v. Baltimore & O.R. Co., 24 F.Cas. 973, 975, 1 Hughes 138, 138, No. 14,510, 14510 (D.W.Va.
Nov 1875)
203 Tektronix Inc. v. U. S., 351 F.2d 630, 635, 173 Ct.Cl. 281, 291, 147 U.S.P.Q. 216, 216 (Ct.Cl. Oct
15, 1965) (NO. 79-61) (BNA Version)
204 Waring v. U. S., 1954 WL 6081, *18, 127 Ct.Cl. 336, 364 (Ct.Cl. Jan 05, 1954)
205 Seltzer v. U.S., 1943 WL 4197, *3+, 98 Ct.Cl. 554, 558+ (Ct.Cl. Mar 01, 1943) (NO. 45709)
206 Chippewa Indians of Minnesota v. U.S., 1940 WL 4115, *8, 90 Ct.Cl. 140, 150 (Ct.Cl. Jan 08, 1940)
(NO. H-163)
207 Creek Nation v. U.S., 1933 WL 1779, *9, 77 Ct.Cl. 159, 171 (Ct.Cl. Mar 13, 1933)
208 Kellom v. U.S., 1920 WL 635, *2+, 55 Ct.Cl. 174, 176+ (Ct.Cl. Mar 01, 1920) (NO. 33235)
209 Maxwell v. U.S., 1914 WL 1395, *6+, 49 Ct.Cl. 262, 269+ (Ct.Cl. Feb 09, 1914)
210 Medkirk v. U.S., 1909 WL 902, *1+, 45 Ct.Cl. 395, 396+ (Ct.Cl. May 02, 1910) (NO. 21162)
211 Medkirk v. U.S., 1908 WL 761, *9, 44 Ct.Cl. 469, 481 (Ct.Cl. Mar 29, 1909) (NO. 21162)
212 Brown v. U.S., 1908 WL 748, *27, 44 Ct.Cl. 283, 321 (Ct.Cl. Feb 08, 1909) (NO. 29987) (in
dissent)
213 Adams v. U.S., 1907 WL 896, *15, 42 Ct.Cl. 191, 212 (Ct.Cl. Feb 18, 1907)
214 Russian-American Packing Co. v. U.S., 1903 WL 840, *10, 39 Ct.Cl. 460, 475 (Ct.Cl. May 16,
1904) (NO. 20758) "
215 Bishop v. U.S., 1902 WL 1116, *8+, 38 Ct.Cl. 473, 485+ (Ct.Cl. Mar 23, 1903) (NO. 21914) "
216 Truitt v. U.S., 1902 WL 1110, *4, 38 Ct.Cl. 398, 404 (Ct.Cl. Mar 09, 1903) (NO. 22655)
217 Denig v. U.S., 1900 WL 1517, *3, 37 Ct.Cl. 383, 387 (Ct.Cl. Mar 31, 1902) (NO. 22629)
218 Swaim v. U.S., 1800 WL 1907, *30, 28 Ct.Cl. 173, 212 (Ct.Cl. Feb 27, 1893) (NO. 16859)
219 In re Billings, 1800 WL 1417, *8, 23 Ct.Cl. 166, 177 (Ct.Cl. Feb 27, 1888) (NO. 29)
220 Runkle v. U.S., 1800 WL 1139, *6+, 19 Ct.Cl. 396, 405+ (Ct.Cl. Apr 07, 1884) (NO. 14246) "
221 Nixon v. U.S., 1800 WL 1297, *5, 18 Ct.Cl. 448, 454 (Ct.Cl. Apr 23, 1883) (NO. 12743) "
222 McCollum v. U.S., 1800 WL 986, *8, 17 Ct.Cl. 92, 102 (Ct.Cl. Dec Term 1881)
223 Belt's Ex'x v. U.S., 1800 WL 1032, *11, 15 Ct.Cl. 92, 108 (Ct.Cl. Dec Term 1879)
224 Farden v. U.S., 1800 WL 951, *3, 13 Ct.Cl. 347, 351 (Ct.Cl. Dec Term 1877)
225 In re Hot Springs Cases, 1800 WL 827, *827, 10 Ct.Cl. 289, 295 (Ct.Cl. Dec Term 1874)
226 Otterbourg v. U.S., 1800 WL 2220, *2, 5 Ct.Cl. 430, 432 (Ct.Cl. Dec Term 1869)
227 Burns v. U.S., 1800 WL 616, *616, 4 Ct.Cl. 113, 115 (Ct.Cl. Dec Term 1868)
228 Ill. Central Railroad Co. v. U.S., 1858 WL 4672, *1, 6 U.S.Cong.Rep.C.C. 153, 153 (Ct.Cl. Feb 01,
1858) " (in dissent)
229 U.S. v. Allen, 31 M.J. 572, 595 (NMCMR Jun 15, 1990) (NO. NMCM 88 1330R)
230 State v. Board of School Com'rs of Mobile County, 63 So. 76, 83+, 183 Ala. 554, 576+ (Ala. Jun 30,
1913) "
231 Knabe v. Burden, 7 So. 92, 93, 88 Ala. 436, 438 (Ala. Dec 20, 1889)
232 Ex parte Hardy, 68 Ala. 303, 331+, 1880 WL 1432, *22+, 13 Cent. L.J. 50, 50+ (Ala. Dec Term
1880) (in dissent)
233 Bates v. Herron, 35 Ala. 117, 125, 1859 WL 680, *6 (Ala. Jun Term 1859)
234 Tillman v. Long, 29 Ala. 376, 377+, 1856 WL 390, *1+ (Ala. Jun Term 1856)
235 Johnson v. Collins, 12 Ala. 322, 332, 1847 WL 396, *7 (Ala. Jun Term 1847)
236 Tetlin Native Corp. v. State, 759 P.2d 528, 535 (Alaska Jul 29, 1988) (NO. S-2265, 3370)
237 Ortiz v. Manning, 82 P.2d 897, 899, 52 Ariz. 425, 428 (Ariz. Sep 26, 1938) (NO. 4008)
238 Old Dominion Copper Min. & Smelting Co. v. Haverly, 90 P. 333, 335, 11 Ariz. 241, 247 (Ariz.Terr.
May 25, 1907)
239 Echols v. Tate, 13 S.W. 253, 254+, 53 Ark. 12, 12+ (Ark. Mar 01, 1890)
240 Hill v. Plunkett, 41 Ark. 465, 465, 1883 WL 1317, *1 (Ark. Nov Term 1883)
241 Gaines v. Hale, 26 Ark. 168, 170, 1870 WL 93, *1 (Ark. Dec Term 1870)
242 Walworth v. Miles, 23 Ark. 653, 662, 1861 WL 676, *6 (Ark. Dec Term 1861)
243 Sturdy v. Jacoway, 19 Ark. 499, 500, 1858 WL 602, *2 (Ark. Jan Term 1858)
244 Gaines v. Hale, 16 Ark. 9, 21+, 1855 WL 561, *7+ (Ark. Jan Term 1855)
245 Howard v. Donahue, 9 P.C.L.J. 232, 232, 60 Cal. 264, 275, 1882 WL 1720, *8 (Cal. Mar 22, 1882)
(NO. 6586)
246 Chapman v. Quinn, 6 P.C.L.J. 637, 637, 56 Cal. 266, 292, 1880 WL 203, *18 (Cal. Jul Term 1880)
(NO. 5770) (in dissent)
247 Central Pac. R. Co. v. Yolland, 49 Cal. 438, 439+, 1875 WL 1645, *2+ (Cal. Jan Term 1875) (NO.
3490)
248 Buhne v. Chism, 48 Cal. 467, 470, 1874 WL 1378, *1 (Cal. Jul Term 1874) (NO. 3711)
249 Miller v. Little, 47 Cal. 348, 350, 1874 WL 1231, *1 (Cal. Jan Term 1874) (NO. 3079)
250 Parker v. Duff, 47 Cal. 554, 559, 1874 WL 1293, *1 (Cal. Jan Term 1874) (NO. 2864)
251 Polack v. Mansfield, 44 Cal. 36, 36+, 1872 WL 1234, *1+, 13 Am.Rep. 151, 151+ (Cal. Jul Term
1872) (NO. 2616)
252 Western Pac. R. Co. v. Tevis, 41 Cal. 489, 490, 1871 WL 1411, *1 (Cal. Apr Term 1871) (NO. 2082)
253 Hastings v. Devlin, 40 Cal. 358, 368, 1870 WL 960, *7 (Cal. Oct Term 1870) (NO. 1124)
254 Rush v. Casey, 39 Cal. 339, 340, 1870 WL 928, *1 (Cal. Apr Term 1870) (NO. 1747)
255 Alemany v. City of Petaluma, 38 Cal. 553, 555+, 1869 WL 796, *1+ (Cal. Oct Term 1869)
256 Durfee v. Plaisted, 38 Cal. 80, 82, 1869 WL 723, *1 (Cal. Jul Term 1869)
257 Megerle v. Ashe, 33 Cal. 74, 79+, 1867 WL 671, *3+ (Cal. Jul Term 1867)
258 Grogan v. Knight, 27 Cal. 515, 517, 1865 WL 433, *1 (Cal. Jan Term 1865)
259 Kernan v. Griffith, 27 Cal. 87, 89, 1864 WL 723, *1 (Cal. Oct Term 1864)
260 Friedman v. Macy, 17 Cal. 226, 227, 1861 WL 718, *2 (Cal. Jan Term 1861)
261 Stuart v. Allen, 16 Cal. 473, 493+, 1860 WL 984, *14+, 76 Am.Dec. 551, 551+ (Cal. Oct Term 1860)
262 Reynolds v. Harris, 14 Cal. 667, 668+, 1860 WL 893, *1+, 76 Am.Dec. 459, 459+ (Cal. Jan Term
1860)
263 Boggs v. Merced Mining Co., 14 Cal. 279, 343, 1859 WL 142, *43 (Cal. Oct 1859)
264 Matter of Archy, 9 Cal. 147, 158, 1858 WL 739, *11 (Cal. Jan Term 1858)
265 Clary v. Hoagland, 6 Cal. 685, 686+, 1856 WL 907, *2+ (Cal. Oct Term 1856)
266 Robinson v. Gaar, 6 Cal. 273, 274+, 1856 WL 788, *1+ (Cal. Jul Term 1856)
267 Nims v. Palmer, 6 Cal. 8, 11+, 1856 WL 671, *3+ (Cal. Jan Term 1856)
268 Pacific Power Co. v. State, 162 P. 643, 644, 32 Cal.App. 175, 177 (Cal.App. 3 Dist. Nov 24, 1916)
(NO. 1463)
269 Hartman v. Tresise, 84 P. 685, 686, 36 Colo. 146, 150, 4 L.R.A.N.S. 872, 872 (Colo. Jun 05, 1905)
270 Farmers' High Line Canal & Reservoir Co. v. Moon, 45 P. 437, 438, 22 Colo. 560, 563 (Colo. Jun
01, 1896)
271 Vantongeren v. Heffernan, 38 N.W. 52, 60, 5 Dakota 180, 180 (Dakota Terr. May 08, 1888)
272 Pritchett v. Clark, 5 Harr. 63, 63, 5 Del. 63, 65, 1848 WL 814, *2 (Del.Err. & App. Jun Term 1848)
273 Prescott v. Bennett, 50 Ga. 266, 274, 1873 WL 2727, *6 (Ga. Jul Term 1873)
274 In re McCandless, 1937 WL 4437, *12+, 34 Haw. 93, 118+ (Hawai'i Terr. Mar 05, 1937) (NO. 2204)
275 Williams v. Sherman, 212 P. 971, 974, 36 Idaho 494, 494 (Idaho Dec 29, 1922) (NO. 4013)
276 Baty v. Sale, 43 Ill. 351, 352, 1867 WL 5041, *1, 92 Am.Dec. 128, 128 (Ill. Jan Term 1867)
277 Trustees of Illinois & Michigan Canal v. Brainard, 12 Ill. 487, 497, 1851 WL 4291, *8, 2 Peck (IL)
487, 487 (Ill. Jun Term 1851)
278 Wiggins v. Lusk, 12 Ill. 132, 133+, 1850 WL 4334, *2+, 2 Peck (IL) 132, 132+ (Ill. Dec Term 1850)
279 Board of Trustees of Illinois & Michigan Canal v. People ex rel. Hoes, 12 Ill. 248, 251, 1850 WL
4359, *3, 52 Am.Dec. 488, 488, 2 Peck (IL) 248, 248 (Ill. Dec Term 1850)
280 Rigg v. Cook, 4 Gilman 336, 336+, 9 Ill. 336, 337+, 1847 WL 3866, *1+, 46 Am.Dec. 462, 462+ (Ill.
Dec Term 1847)
281 Ferguson v. Sutphen, 3 Gilman 547, 547, 8 Ill. 547, 561, 1846 WL 3891, *10 (Ill. Dec Term 1846)
282 Bennett v. Farrar, 2 Gilman 598, 598+, 7 Ill. 598, 600+, 1845 WL 3973, *2+ (Ill. Dec Term 1845)
283 Turney v. Saunders, 4 Scam. 527, 527, 5 Ill. 527, 535, 1843 WL 4119, *7 (Ill. Dec Term 1843) (in
dissent)
284 Fail v. Goodtitle ex dem. Hay, 1 Ill. 201, 203, 1826 WL 1775, *3, Breese 201, 201 (Ill. Dec Term
1826)
285 Mother Earth, Ltd. v. Strawberry Camel, Ltd., 390 N.E.2d 393, 401, 72 Ill.App.3d 37, 45, 28 Ill.Dec.
226, 234 (Ill.App. 1 Dist. May 07, 1979) (NO. 77-1177, 78-314)
286 Iowa Elec. Co. v. State Bd. of Control, 266 N.W. 543, 545, 221 Iowa 1050, 1050 (Iowa Apr 07,
1936) (NO. 42959)
287 David v. Rickabaugh, 32 Iowa 540, 543, 1871 WL 610, *2 (Iowa Dec 08, 1871)
288 Klein's Heirs v. Argenbright, 26 Iowa 493, 496, 1869 WL 269, *2 (Iowa Jan 30, 1869)
289 Marshall v. Bush, Morris 275, 281, 1844 WL 3966, *6 (Iowa Terr. Jan Term 1844)
290 Levi v. Thompson, Morris 235, 237, 1843 WL 53, *2 (Iowa Terr. Jan Term 1843)
291 Lyman Flood Prevention Ass'n v. City of Topeka, 106 P.2d 117, 121, 152 Kan. 484, 484 (Kan. Oct
05, 1940) (NO. 34939)
292 Burlington, K. & S. W. R. Co. v. Johnson, 16 P. 125, 129, 38 Kan. 142, 142 (Kan. Dec 10, 1887)
293 Grinter v. Kansas Pac. Ry. Co., 23 Kan. 642, 645, 1880 WL 960, *2 (Kan. Jan Term 1880) "
294 Oliver v. Forbes, 17 Kan. 113, 116, 1876 WL 934, *1 (Kan. Jul Term 1876)
295 Leavenworth L. & G.R. Co. v. Coffin, 16 Kan. 510, 511, 1876 WL 1064, *1 (Kan. Jan Term 1876) "
296 Wood v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co., 11 Kan. 323, 326, 1873 WL 649, *2 (Kan. Jan Term 1873)
297 Clay v. State, 4 Kan. 49, 53, 1866 WL 445, *2 (Kan. Jul Term 1866)
298 Janes v. Wilkinson, 42 P. 735, 737, 2 Kan.App. 361, 361 (Kan.App. Nov 11, 1895)
299 Com. v. James, 128 S.W. 338, 339, 138 Ky. 472, 472 (Ky. May 27, 1910)
300 Meyer v. State, 121 So. 604, 606, 168 La. 146, 151 (La. Feb 25, 1929) (NO. 29727)
301 Ford v. Edenborn, 77 So. 851, 852, 142 La. 927, 930 (La. Jan 28, 1918) (NO. 21109) "
302 Haggerty v. Annison, 62 So. 946, 946+, 133 La. 338, 338+ (La. May 12, 1913) (NO. 19,352)
303 Ludeling v. Vester, 20 La.Ann. 433, 437, 1868 WL 4439, *5 (La. Jun 1868) (NO. 1013)
304 Bell v. Hearne, 10 La.Ann. 515, 517, 1855 WL 4479, *2 (La. Jul 1855)
305 Terry v. Hennen, 4 La.Ann. 458, 460+, 1849 WL 3767, *2+ (La. Jun 1849)
306 Lott v. Prudhomme, 3 Rob. (LA) 293, 295+, 1842 WL 1545, *2+ (La. Oct 1842)
307 Landry v. Gautreau, 1 Rob. (LA) 372, 376, 1842 WL 1443, *2 (La. Feb 1842)
308 Barton's Ex'x v. Hempkin, 19 La. 510, 515, 1841 WL 1676, *2 (La. Oct 1841)
309 Guidry v. Woods, 19 La. 334, 339, 1841 WL 1608, *2, 36 Am.Dec. 677, 677 (La. Sep 1841)
310 Riceland Petroleum Co. v. North American Land Co., Inc., 869 So.2d 894, 899, 159 Oil & Gas Rep.
663, 663, 2003-241 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/18/04), 8 (La.App. 3 Cir. Feb 18, 2004) (NO. CA 03-241)
311 West v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., 123 N.E. 621, 623, 233 Mass. 162, 166 (Mass. Jun 18, 1919)
312 Taylor v. Wilson, 11 Metcalf 44, 44, 52 Mass. 44, 49, 1846 WL 3957, *4, 45 Am.Dec. 180, 180
(Mass. 1846)
313 Sterling v. Jackson, 37 N.W. 845, 846, 69 Mich. 488, 488, 13 Am.St.Rep. 405, 405 (Mich. Apr 20,
1888)
314 Boyce v. Danz, 29 Mich. 146, 151, 1874 WL 6360, *3 (Mich. Apr 08, 1874)
315 People ex rel. Brewer v. Kidd, 23 Mich. 440, 440, 1871 WL 5621, *5621 (Mich. Oct 04, 1871)
316 Ballou v. O'Brien, 20 Mich. 304, 312, 1 Mich.N.P.Supp. LIII, LIII, 1870 WL 4130, *5 (Mich. May
03, 1870)
317 In re Spangler, 11 Mich. 298, 322, 1863 WL 1187, *14 (Mich. May 12, 1863)
318 Marathon Tp. v. Oregon Tp., 8 Mich. 372, 376, 1860 WL 4690, *3 (Mich. Jun 09, 1860)
319 Greenvault v. Farmers' & Mechanics' Bank, 2 Doug. 498, 505, 1847 WL 2635, *4 (Mich. Jan Term
1847)
320 O'Connor v. Gertgens, 89 N.W. 866, 872, 85 Minn. 481, 497 (Minn. Apr 04, 1902)
321 Burfenning v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 48 N.W. 444, 444, 46 Minn. 20, 20 (Minn. Apr 03,
1891)
322 German Land Ass'n v. Scholler, 10 Minn. 331, 339, 1865 WL 976, *5, 10 Gil. 260, 260 (Minn. Jan
Term 1865)
323 State v. Batchelder, 7 Minn. 121, 130+, 1862 WL 76, *7+, 7 Gil. 79, 79+ (Minn. Jul Term 1862)
324 Randall v. Edert, 7 Minn. 450, 452, 1862 WL 1290, *2, 7 Gil. 359, 359 (Minn. Jul Term 1862)
325 Irvine v. Marshall, 7 Minn. 286, 299+, 1862 WL 1268, *10+, 7 Gil. 216, 216+ (Minn. Jul Term
1862) "
326 State v. Bachelder, 5 Minn. 223, 227+, 1861 WL 4341, *1+, 80 Am.Dec. 410, 410+, 5 Gil. 178, 178+
(Minn. Jul Term 1861)
327 Land v. Keirn, 52 Miss. 341, 350, 1876 WL 5193, *6 (Miss. Apr Term 1876)
328 Minter v. Shirley, 45 Miss. 376, 378+, 1871 WL 3994, *1+ (Miss. Oct Term 1871)
329 Hardin v. Ho-yo-po-nubby, 5 Cushm. 567, 567, 27 Miss. 567, 576, 1854 WL 2268, *6 (Miss.Err. &
App. Apr Term 1854)
330 Vick v. Percy, 7 Smedes & M. 256, 256, 15 Miss. 256, 267, 1846 WL 1688, *8, 45 Am.Dec. 303,
303 (Miss.Err. & App. Nov Term 1846)
331 Funkhouser v. Peck, 67 Mo. 19, 21+, 1877 WL 9262, *1+ (Mo. Oct Term 1877) "
332 Magwire v. Tyler, 40 Mo. 406, 416, 1867 WL 74, *6 (Mo. Mar Term 1867)
333 Pacific R.R. v. Lindell's Heirs, 39 Mo. 329, 336, 1866 WL 4353, *4 (Mo. Oct Term 1866)
334 Hannibal & St. J.R. Co. v. Moore, 37 Mo. 338, 339, 1866 WL 4084, *1 (Mo. Feb Term 1866)
335 Hill v. Miller, 36 Mo. 182, 185+, 1865 WL 2668, *3+ (Mo. Aug Term 1865)
336 Allison v. Hunter, 9 Mo. 749, 756, 1846 WL 3738, *4 (Mo. Jan Term 1846)
337 Lewis v. Lewis, 9 Mo. 183, 190, 1845 WL 3839, *4, 43 Am.Dec. 540, 540 (Mo. Jan Term 1845)
338 Trotter v. St. Louis Public Schools, 9 Mo. 69, 102, 1845 WL 3757, *23 (Mo. Jan Term 1845) (in
dissent)
339 Stephenson v. Smith, 7 Mo. 610, 638+, 1842 WL 3761, *15+ (Mo. Sep Term 1842)
340 Heiser v. Severy, 158 P.2d 501, 508, 117 Mont. 105, 122, 160 A.L.R. 319, 319 (Mont. Mar 19, 1945)
(NO. 8482)
341 Barnes v. Montana Lumber & Hardware Co., 216 P. 335, 337, 67 Mont. 481, 481 (Mont. Jun 12,
1923) (NO. 5239) "
342 State v. Tully, 78 P. 760, 766+, 31 Mont. 365, 365+, 3 Am.Ann.Cas. 824, 824+ (Mont. Dec 01, 1904)
(NO. 2054) "
343 U.S. v. Bisel, 19 P. 251, 253+, 8 Mont. 20, 20+ (Mont.Terr. Sep 15, 1888)
344 Gunberg v. Juveland, 179 N.W. 375, 376, 46 N.D. 44, 44 (N.D. Sep 25, 1920)
345 Morton v. Green, 2 Neb. 441, 448+, 1872 WL 100, *4+ (Neb. 1872)
346 Franklin v. Kelley, 2 Neb. 79, 90, 1872 WL 5813, *6 (Neb. 1872)
347 Smiley v. Sampson, 1 Neb. 56, 75, 1871 WL 124, *11 (Neb. 1871)
348 Springer v. Clopath, 65 P. 804, 805, 26 Nev. 183, 183 (Nev. Jul 26, 1901) (NO. 1602) "
349 Metcalf v. Gilmore, 59 N.H. 417, 427, 1879 WL 4262, *9, 47 Am.Rep. 217, 217 (N.H. 1879)
350 Delaware, L. & W.R. Co. v. Henry Nuhs Co., 111 A. 223, 224, 93 N.J.L. 309, 312, 8 Gummere 309,
309 (N.J.Sup. Jul 15, 1919)
351 D.L. & W.R. Co. v. Ginsberg, 63 A.2d 300, 300, 26 N.J. Misc. 331, 332 (N.J.Dist.Ct. Nov 29, 1948)
352 State v. Patten, 69 P.2d 931, 935, 41 N.M. 395, 395 (N.M. Jun 21, 1937) (NO. 4152) "
353 White v. Mayo, 299 P. 1068, 1070, 35 N.M. 430, 430 (N.M. Apr 15, 1931) (NO. 3551)
354 Fisher v. Hepburn, 3 Sickels 41, 48 N.Y. 41, 52, 1871 WL 9889, *9889 (N.Y. 1871) "
355 People ex rel. Davis v. Sturtevant, 5 Seld. 263, 263, Seld.Notes 196, 196, 9 N.Y. 263, 266, 1853 WL
6074, *3, 59 Am.Dec. 536, 536 (N.Y. 1853)
356 Wickelhausen v. Willett, 10 Abb.Pr. 164, 164 (N.Y.Super. 1860)
357 Kamp v. Kamp, 46 How. Pr. 143, 144+ (N.Y.Sup. 1873)
358 Baltimore & O.R. Co. v. Cary, 1876 WL 3, *6, 28 Ohio St. 208, 217 (Ohio Dec Term 1876) (in
dissent)
359 Matheny v. Golden, 1856 WL 2, *25, 5 Ohio St. 361, 400 (Ohio Dec Term 1856) (in dissent)
360 Noble v. Oklahoma City, 44 P.2d 135, 142+, 172 Okla. 182, 182+, 1935 OK 162, 162+ (Okla. Feb
19, 1935) (NO. 23821, 23822) "
361 Goff v. Goff, 231 P. 204, 205, 104 Okla. 257, 257, 1924 OK 1011, 1011 (Okla. Nov 12, 1924) (NO.
15088) "
362 Foreman v. Marks, 209 P. 1040, 1043, 87 Okla. 205, 205, 1922 OK 297, 297 (Okla. Oct 03, 1922)
(NO. 10793) "
363 Grayson v. Durant, 144 P. 592, 595, 43 Okla. 799, 799, 1914 OK 581, 581 (Okla. Nov 24, 1914)
(NO. 3328)
364 Phillips v. Byrd, 143 P. 684, 686, 43 Okla. 556, 556, 1914 OK 489, 489 (Okla. Oct 13, 1914) (NO.
3419)
365 McMichael v. Murphy, 70 P. 189, 191+, 12 Okla. 155, 155+, 1902 OK 71, 71+ (Okla.Terr. Sep 02,
1902)
366 Adams v. Freeman, 50 P. 135, 138, 1897 OK 49, 49 (Okla.Terr. Jul 30, 1897)
367 State ex rel. Kaser v. Leonard, 102 P.2d 197, 205, 164 Or. 579, 604, 129 A.L.R. 1125, 1125 (Or. May
14, 1940)
368 Moore v. Halliday, 72 P. 801, 802, 43 Or. 243, 253, 99 Am.St.Rep. 724, 724 (Or. Jun 22, 1903)
369 Stewart v. Altstock, 29 P. 553, 555, 22 Or. 182, 187 (Or. Mar 29, 1892)
370 Larsen v. Oregon Ry. & Nav. Co., 23 P. 974, 977, 19 Or. 240, 246 (Or. May 16, 1890)
371 Hyde v. Holland, 22 P. 1104, 1104, 18 Or. 331, 334 (Or. Jan 09, 1890)
372 Dolph v. Barney, 1874 WL 241, *7, 5 Or. 191, 202 (Or. Dec Term 1874)
373 Gaston v. Stott, 1873 WL 959, *3+, 5 Or. 48, 50+ (Or. Dec Term 1873)
374 Lee v. Summers, 1868 WL 651, *5, 2 Or. 260, 267 (Or. Sep Term 1868)
375 Groslouis v. Northcut, 1872 WL 1012, *3, 3 Or. 394, 397 (Or.Cir. Feb Term 1872)
376 White v. Allen, 1869 WL 594, *5+, 3 Or. 103, 111+ (Or.Cir. Oct Term 1869)
377 James v. Smith, 2 S.C. 183, 188, 1870 WL 3509, *4, 2 Richardson 183, 183 (S.C. Apr Term 1870)
378 Gould v. Tucker, 105 N.W. 624, 626, 20 S.D. 226, 226 (S.D. Nov 29, 1905)
379 Bryan v. Shirley, 53 Tex. 440, 455, 1880 WL 9330, *10 (Tex. 1880) (NO. 3625)
380 Milam County v. Bateman, 54 Tex. 153, 158+, 1880 WL 9379, *2+ (Tex. 1880) (NO. 853)
381 Edgar v. Galveston City Co., 46 Tex. 421, 425, 1877 WL 8547, *3 (Tex. 1877)
382 Kuechler v. Wright, 40 Tex. 600, 606, 1874 WL 7968, *4 (Tex. 1874)
383 Galan v. Goliad, 32 Tex. 776, 781, 1870 WL 5684, *4 (Tex. 1870)
384 Sherwood v. Fleming, 25 Tex.Supp. 408, 421, 1860 WL 5894, *10 (Tex. 1860)
385 Edgar v. Galveston City Co., 21 Tex. 302, 319, 1858 WL 5457, *9 (Tex. 1858)
386 Kimmell v. Wheeler, 22 Tex. 77, 82+, 1858 WL 5593, *4+ (Tex. 1858)
387 Mason v. Russel's Heirs, 1 Tex. 721, 725+, 1847 WL 3500, *3+ (Tex. Dec Term 1847)
388 Yoakum County v. Slaughter, 160 S.W. 1175, 1180 (Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo Nov 01, 1913)
389 U.S. v. Elliot, 26 P. 1117, 1118, 7 Utah 389, 389 (Utah Terr. Jul 01, 1891) "
390 Laurelhurst Club v. Backus, 296 P. 819, 821, 161 Wash. 185, 192 (Wash. Mar 05, 1931) (NO. 22677)
391 State v. Superior Court of Washington for Mason County, 238 P. 985, 988, 136 Wash. 87, 96 (Wash.
Sep 02, 1925) (NO. 19354)
392 State v. Superior Court for Jefferson County, 157 P. 1097, 1099, 91 Wash. 454, 459 (Wash. Jun 09,
1916) (NO. 13152)
393 Card v. Cerini, 150 P. 610, 610, 86 Wash. 419, 421 (Wash. Jul 29, 1915) (NO. 12507) "
394 State v. Whitney, 120 P. 116, 121, 66 Wash. 473, 488 (Wash. Jan 04, 1912)
395 Eckert v. Schmitt, 110 P. 635, 637+, 60 Wash. 23, 27+ (Wash. Sep 06, 1910) "
396 Krieg v. Lewis, 105 P. 483, 484, 56 Wash. 196, 198, 26 L.R.A.N.S. 1117, 1117 (Wash. Dec 06, 1909)
397 Cunningham v. Krutz, 83 P. 109, 112, 41 Wash. 190, 197, 7 L.R.A.N.S. 967, 967 (Wash. Dec 27,
1905)
398 McSorley v. Hill, 27 P. 552, 556, 2 Wash. 638, 650 (Wash. Aug 01, 1891) (NO. 196) "
399 Pierce v. Frace, 26 P. 807, 808, 2 Wash. 81, 102 (Wash. Feb 11, 1891) (in dissent)
400 Smith v. City of Beloit, 100 N.W. 877, 881, 122 Wis. 396, 396 (Wis. Sep 27, 1904)
401 Mendota Club v. Anderson, 78 N.W. 185, 188, 101 Wis. 479, 479 (Wis. Jan 10, 1899)
402 Whitney v. Detroit Lumber Co., 47 N.W. 425, 427, 78 Wis. 240, 240 (Wis. Dec 16, 1890) "
403 Wisconsin Cent. R. Co. v. Wisconsin River Land Co., 36 N.W. 837, 839, 71 Wis. 94, 94 (Wis. Feb
28, 1888) "
404 Paige v. Peters, 35 N.W. 328, 329, 70 Wis. 178, 178, 5 Am.St.Rep. 156, 156 (Wis. Nov 22, 1887)
405 Denniston v. Unknown Owners, 29 Wis. 351, 353, 1872 WL 5836, *1 (Wis. Jan Term 1872)
406 Ruggles v. Marsilliott, 19 Wis. 159, 170, 1865 WL 748, *7 (Wis. Jan Term 1865)
407 Bracken v. Parkinson, 1 Pin. 685, 694+, 1846 WL 2862, *4+ (Wis.Terr. Jul Term 1846) "
408 Bracken v. Preston, 1 Pin. 584, 599, 1845 WL 1327, *7, 44 Am.Dec. 412, 412 (Wis.Terr. Jul Term
1845)
409 Parkison v. Bracken, Bur. 13, 17, 1 Pin. 174, 178, 1842 WL 1306, *2, 39 Am.Dec. 296, 296
(Wis.Terr. Jul Term 1842)
410 San Geronimo Caribe Project, Inc. v. Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico, 2008 WL 3861853,
*40+, 2008TSPR129, 129+ (P.R. Jul 31, 2008) (NO. CT-2008-4)
411 Pantlind Hotel Co. v. C.I.R., 1927 WL 199, *199, 9 B.T.A. 878, 884 (B.T.A. Dec 27, 1927) (NO.
18436)
412 Trustees for Ohio & Big Sandy Coal Co. v. C.I.R., 1927 WL 144, *144, 9 B.T.A. 617, 625 (B.T.A.
Dec 17, 1927) (NO. 7888)
Mentioned
413 Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp., 69 S.Ct. 1457, 1472, 337 U.S. 682, 710, 93 L.Ed.
1628, 1628 (U.S.Dist.Col. Jun 27, 1949) (NO. 31) (in dissent)
414 Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. of Idaho v. U.S., 37 S.Ct. 625, 627, 244 U.S. 351, 357, 61 L.Ed. 1184,
1184 (U.S.Idaho Jun 04, 1917) (NO. 176)
415 Light v. U.S., 31 S.Ct. 485, 487, 220 U.S. 523, 535, 55 L.Ed. 570, 570 (U.S.Colo. May 01, 1911)
(NO. 360)
416 Reagan v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 14 S.Ct. 1047, 1052, 154 U.S. 362, 391, 38 L.Ed. 1014, 1014
(U.S.Tex. May 26, 1894) (NO. 928)
417 Guaranty Trust & Safe-Deposit Co. v. Green Cove Springs & Melrose R. Co., 11 S.Ct. 512, 516, 139
U.S. 137, 147, 35 L.Ed. 116, 116 (U.S.Fla. Mar 09, 1891)
418 In re Sawyer, 8 S.Ct. 482, 493, 124 U.S. 200, 220, 31 L.Ed. 402, 402 (U.S.Neb. Jan 09, 1888)
419 Poindexter v. Greenhow, 5 S.Ct. 903, 912, 114 U.S. 270, 287, 29 L.Ed. 185, 185 (U.S.Va. Apr 20,
1885)
420 Cunningham v. Macon & B. R. Co., 3 S.Ct. 292, 297, 109 U.S. 446, 452, 27 L.Ed. 992, 992 (U.S.Ga.
Dec 03, 1883)
421 Stark v. Starrs, 1867 WL 11204, *5, 73 U.S. 402, 408, 18 L.Ed. 925, 925, 6 Wall. 402, 402 (U.S.Or.
Dec Term 1867)
422 Harkness v. Underhill, 1861 WL 7705, *4, 66 U.S. 316, 320, 1 Black 316, 316, 17 L.Ed. 208, 208
(U.S.Ill. Dec Term 1861)
423 Rice v. Minnesota & N. W. R. Co., 1861 WL 7682, *4, 66 U.S. 358, 365, 1 Black 358, 358, 17 L.Ed.
147, 147 (U.S.Minn. Dec Term 1861)
424 Magwire v. Tyler, 1861 WL 7664, *1, 66 U.S. 195, 196, 1 Black 195, 195, 17 L.Ed. 137, 137
(U.S.Mo. Dec Term 1861)
425 Kissell v. St. Louis Public Schools Board of President and Directors, 1855 WL 8238, *8, 59 U.S. 19,
27, 18 How. 19, 19, 15 L.Ed. 324, 324 (U.S.Mo. Dec Term 1855)
426 Kennedy v. Hunt's Lessee, 1849 WL 6395, *3+, 48 U.S. 586, 589+, 7 How. 586, 586+, 12 L.Ed. 829,
829+ (U.S.Ala. Jan Term 1849)
427 Fourniquet v. Perkins, 1849 WL 6410, *4, 48 U.S. 160, 164, 7 How. 160, 160, 12 L.Ed. 650, 650
(U.S.La. Jan Term 1849)
428 Peck v. Jenness, 1849 WL 6401, *3, 48 U.S. 612, 614, 7 How. 612, 612, 12 L.Ed. 841, 841
(U.S.N.H. Jan Term 1849)
429 Bank of U.S. v. Moss, 1848 WL 6435, *7, 47 U.S. 31, 38, 6 How. 31, 31, 12 L.Ed. 331, 331
(U.S.Miss. Term 1848)
430 Levi v. Thompson, 1846 WL 5687, *2, 45 U.S. 17, 18, 4 How. 17, 17, 11 L.Ed. 856, 856 (U.S.Iowa
Jan Term 1846)
431 Blondet v. Hadley, 144 F.2d 370, 372 (C.C.A.1 (Puerto Rico) Aug 25, 1944) (NO. 3924)
432 Roxford Knitting Co. v. Moore & Tierney, 265 F. 177, 190, 11 A.L.R. 1415, 1415 (C.C.A.2 (N.Y.)
Mar 18, 1920) (NO. 70, 71)
433 Elliott v. Peirsoll, 8 F.Cas. 543, 543, 1 McLean 11, 11, No. 4395, 4395 (C.C.D.Ky. May Term 1829)
434 State of Wis. v. Baker, 698 F.2d 1323, 1327 (7th Cir.(Wis.) Jan 26, 1983) (NO. 81-2868, 81-2916)
435 Duke v. Durfee, 308 F.2d 209, 213 (8th Cir.(Mo.) Sep 18, 1962) (NO. 16763, 16764)
436 Utah Power & Light Co. v. U.S., 230 F. 328, 340, 144 C.C.A. 470, 470 (C.C.A.8 (Utah) Nov 24,
1915) (NO. 4506, 4507)
437 Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Karges, 169 F. 459, 462 (C.C.D.Neb. May 04, 1909)
438 Neff v. U. S., 165 F. 273, 281, 91 C.C.A. 241, 241 (C.C.A.8 (Kan.) Nov 23, 1908) (NO. 2613)
439 Wadsworth v. Boysen, 148 F. 771, 780, 78 C.C.A. 437, 437 (C.C.A.8 (Wyo.) Nov 23, 1906) (NO.
2456)
440 Northern Lumber Co. v. O'Brien, 139 F. 614, 616, 71 C.C.A. 598, 598 (C.C.A.8 (Minn.) Jul 26,
1905) (NO. 2219)
441 In re Brodie, 128 F. 665, 668, 63 C.C.A. 419, 419 (C.C.A.8 Mar 04, 1904) (NO. 36, 37, 38, 39)
442 Peyton v. Desmond, 129 F. 1, 10, 63 C.C.A. 651, 651 (C.C.A.8 (Minn.) Feb 15, 1904) (NO. 1878)
443 King v. McAndrews, 111 F. 860, 864+, 50 C.C.A. 29, 29+ (C.C.A.8 (S.D.) Oct 28, 1901) (NO. 1569)
444 James v. Germania Iron Co., 107 F. 597, 603, 46 C.C.A. 476, 476 (C.C.A.8 (Minn.) Mar 28, 1901)
(NO. 1434, 1433)
445 St. Paul & N.P. Ry. Co. v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 57 F. 272, 273 (C.C.D.Minn. Aug 24, 1893)
446 Burr v. Greeley, 52 F. 926, 927, 3 C.C.A. 357, 357 (C.C.A.8 (Mo.) Oct 17, 1892) (NO. 130)
447 Saulque v. U.S., 663 F.2d 968, 974 (9th Cir.(Cal.) Dec 14, 1981) (NO. 80-4078)
448 U. S. v. Consolidated Mines & Smelting Co., 455 F.2d 432, 442 (9th Cir.(Wash.) Dec 06, 1971) (NO.
25164, 25241)
449 U.S. v. Hanson, 167 F. 881, 889, 93 C.C.A. 371, 371 (C.C.A.9 (Wash.) Feb 01, 1909) (NO. 1632)
450 U.S. v. Oregon & C.R. Co., 143 F. 765, 771, 75 C.C.A. 66, 66 (C.C.A.9 (Or.) Feb 05, 1906) (NO.
1213)
451 Garrard v. Silver Peak Mines, 82 F. 578, 583 (C.C.D.Nev. Aug 16, 1897) (NO. 617)
452 Murray v. American Surety Co., 70 F. 341, 346, 17 C.C.A. 138, 138 (C.C.A.9 (Cal.) Oct 08, 1895)
(NO. 218)
453 Ute Indian Tribe v. State of Utah, 773 F.2d 1087, 1106 (10th Cir.(Utah) Sep 17, 1985) (NO. 81-1827,
81-1901) (in dissent)
454 Ute Indian Tribe v. State of Utah, 716 F.2d 1298, 1305 (10th Cir.(Utah) Aug 29, 1983) (NO. 811827, 81-1901)
455 Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Kansas City, W. & N.W.R. Co., 53 F. 182, 192 (C.C.D.Kan. Nov 21,
1892)
456 Walker v. Ford, 269 F. 877, 878, 50 App.D.C. 225, 226 (App.D.C. Jan 03, 1921) (NO. 3409)
457 Central Pac. Ry. Co. v. Lane, 46 App.D.C. 374, 379+, 1917 WL 20126, *4+ (App.D.C. Apr 23, 1917)
(NO. 3012)
458 U.S. ex rel. Southern Pac. R. Co. v. Lane, 46 App.D.C. 74, 76, 1917 WL 20130, *2 (App.D.C. Feb
06, 1917) (NO. 3010)
459 Morse v. U.S., 29 App.D.C. 433, 439, 1907 WL 19758, *4 (App.D.C. May 07, 1907) (NO. 1704)
460 Goff v. U.S., 22 App.D.C. 512, 526, 1903 WL 18585, *10 (App.D.C. Nov 04, 1903) (NO. 1315)
461 District of Columbia v. Humphries, 12 App.D.C. 122, 124, 1898 WL 15575, *2 (App.D.C. Jan 05,
1898) (NO. 742)
462 St. Louis & S.F.R. Co. v. Allen, 181 F. 710, 722 (C.C.W.D.Ark. Aug 18, 1910)
463 Sawyer v. Osterhaus, 212 F. 765, 775 (N.D.Cal. Feb 07, 1914) (NO. 15069)
464 In re Eaton, 51 F. 804, 805 (C.C.N.D.Cal. Aug 22, 1892) (NO. 11684, 11690)
465 Lakin v. Dolly, 53 F. 333, 336 (C.C.N.D.Cal. Mar 23, 1891) (NO. 10596, 10630)
466 Hill v. District of Columbia, 7 Mackey 481, 481, 1889 WL 11618, *2, 18 D.C. 481, 482 (D.C.Sup.
Dec 1889) (NO. 28011)
467 Offutt v. Dangler, 5 Mackey 313, 313, 1886 WL 15890, *2, 16 D.C. 313, 315 (D.C.Sup. Nov 08,
1886) (NO. 26730)
468 U.S. ex rel. De la Rua v. Bayard, 4 Mackey 310, 310, 1885 WL 18385, *4, 15 D.C. 310, 313
(D.C.Sup. Dec 07, 1885) (NO. 15310)
469 International Paper Co. v. Burrill, 260 F. 664, 667 (D.Mass. Sep 19, 1919) (NO. 1060)
470 In re Elmira Steel Co., 109 F. 456, 465 (N.D.N.Y. Apr 17, 1901)
471 Beaver v. Short, 300 F. 113, 114 (E.D.Okla. Jul 19, 1924) (NO. 3003)
472 Adams v. Terrell, 4 F. 796, 800, 4 Woods 337, 337 (C.C.W.D.Tex. Nov 20, 1880)
473 Lee v. Kaufman, 15 F.Cas. 204, 208, 3 Hughes 139, 139, No. 8192, 8192 (C.C.E.D.Va. Jan 30, 1879)
474 Boston Towboat Co. v. John H. Sesnon Co., 199 F. 445, 447 (W.D.Wash. Aug 24, 1912) (NO. 2,055)
475 Congress Const. Corp. v. U. S., 314 F.2d 527, 531, 161 Ct.Cl. 50, 56 (Ct.Cl. Mar 06, 1963) (NO.
535-59)
476 Brownfield v. U.S., 1960 WL 8447, *4, 148 Ct.Cl. 411, 416 (Ct.Cl. Jan 20, 1960)
477 Sabin v. U.S., 44 F.2d 70, 77, 70 Ct.Cl. 574, 587, 2 USTC P 589, 589, 9 A.F.T.R. 236, 236 (Ct.Cl.
Oct 20, 1930) (NO. H-391, J-651)
478 Weller v. U.S., 1906 WL 883, *7, 41 Ct.Cl. 324, 335 (Ct.Cl. Apr 02, 1906)
479 Verdier v. U.S., 1800 WL 1918, *1918, 28 Ct.Cl. 268, 270 (Ct.Cl. Apr 10, 1893) (NO. 16340)
480 Filhiol v. U.S., 1800 WL 1899, *5, 28 Ct.Cl. 110, 116 (Ct.Cl. Jan 31, 1893) (NO. 17196)
481 King v. U.S., 1800 WL 2020, *2020, 27 Ct.Cl. 529, 533 (Ct.Cl. Nov 28, 1892) (NO. 12335)
482 Newton v. U.S., 1800 WL 1295, *4, 18 Ct.Cl. 435, 439 (Ct.Cl. Apr 23, 1883) (NO. 12329)
483 U.S. v. Markovitz, 1954 WL 2542, *2542, 16 C.M.R. 709, 711 (AFBR Jun 24, 1954) (NO. ACM
8876)
484 Board of Revenue of Covington County v. Merrill, 68 So. 971, 979, 193 Ala. 521, 546 (Ala. Apr 23,
1915) (NO. 556)
485 Harris v. Cosby, 55 So. 231, 235, 173 Ala. 81, 96 (Ala. Feb 02, 1911)
486 Wood v. Pittman, 20 So. 972, 973+, 113 Ala. 207, 212+ (Ala. Nov 25, 1896)
487 Moody v. Bibb, 50 Ala. 245, 248, 1874 WL 979, *2 (Ala. Jan Term 1874)
488 Ware v. St. Louis Bagging & Rope Co., 47 Ala. 667, 671, 1872 WL 852, *3 (Ala. Jan Term 1872)
489 Phillips v. Sherman, 36 Ala. 189, 194, 1860 WL 527, *3 (Ala. Jan Term 1860)
490 Rose v. Griffin, 33 Ala. 717, 723, 1859 WL 632, *4 (Ala. Jan Term 1859)
491 Stephens v. Westwood, 25 Ala. 716, 719, 1854 WL 385, *3 (Ala. Jun Term 1854)
492 Mitchell v. Cobb, 13 Ala. 137, 138, 1848 WL 307, *1 (Ala. Jan Term 1848)
493 Territory v. Delinquent Tax List of Apache County for 1887, 21 P. 888, 894, 3 Ariz. 69, 91 (Ariz.Terr.
Mar 20, 1889)
494 Casselberry v. Fletcher, 27 Ark. 385, 388, 1872 WL 1024, *2 (Ark. Jun Term 1872)
495 McNeil v. Kingsbury, 213 P. 50, 52, 190 Cal. 406, 410 (Cal. Feb 14, 1923) (NO. S.F. 10440)
496 McLaughlin v. Heid, 11 P.C.L.J. 80, 80+, 63 Cal. 208, 209+, 1883 WL 1417, *1+ (Cal. Feb 27, 1883)
497 Cruz v. Martinez, 2 P.C.L.J. 262, 262, 53 Cal. 239, 242, 1878 WL 1451, *2, 2 Cal.Leg.Rec. 90, 90
(Cal. Oct Term 1878) (NO. 5897)
498 Figg v. Handley, 52 Cal. 244, 245, 1877 WL 1769, *1 (Cal. Apr Term 1877) (NO. 5036)
499 Sacramento Sav. Bank v. Hynes, 50 Cal. 195, 199, 1875 WL 1564, *3 (Cal. Jul Term 1875) (NO.
3910)
500 Morenhout v. Barron, 42 Cal. 591, 601, 1871 WL 1535, *5 (Cal. Jan Term 1871) (NO. 1705)
501 Jones v. City of Petaluma, 38 Cal. 397, 399, 1869 WL 771, *1 (Cal. Oct Term 1869)
502 Hutton v. Frisbie, 37 Cal. 475, 479+, 1869 WL 918, *2+ (Cal. Jul Term 1869)
503 Terry v. Megerle, 24 Cal. 609, 613+, 1864 WL 613, *3+, 85 Am.Dec. 84, 84+ (Cal. Apr Term 1864)
504 Townsend v. Gordon, 19 Cal. 188, 197+, 1861 WL 988, *8+ (Cal. Oct Term 1861)
505 Leese v. Clark, 18 Cal. 535, 548, 1861 WL 919, *10 (Cal. Jul Term 1861)
506 Northern Pac. R.R. Co. v. Peronto, 14 N.W. 103, 106, 3 Dakota 217, 217 (Dakota Terr. Nov 20,
1882)
507 State v. Jennings, 35 So. 986, 994, 47 Fla. 302, 325, 47 Fla. 307, 307 (Fla. Apr 28, 1903)
508 Florida Town Imp. Co. v. Bigalsky, 33 So. 450, 451, 44 Fla. 771, 776 (Fla. Dec 22, 1902)
509 Johnson v. Drew, 15 So. 780, 782, 34 Fla. 130, 138, 43 Am.St.Rep. 172, 172 (Fla. Jul 19, 1894)
510 Tucker v. Harris, 13 Ga. 1, 8, 1853 WL 1553, *5, 58 Am.Dec. 488, 488 (Ga. Feb Term 1853) (NO. 1)
511 Batterton v. Douglas Mining Co., 120 P. 827, 829, 20 Idaho 760, 760, 38 L.R.A.N.S. 1121, 1121
(Idaho Dec 13, 1911)
512 Webster v. French, 11 Ill. 254, 260+, 1849 WL 4283, *4+, 1 Peck (IL) 254, 254+ (Ill. Dec Term
1849)
513 Cook v. Jersey County School Com'rs, 1 Gilman 537, 537, 6 Ill. 537, 538, 1844 WL 4104, *1 (Ill.
Dec Term 1844)
514 Jackson ex dem. McConnell v. Wilcox, 1 Scam. 344, 344, 2 Ill. 344, 381, 1837 WL 2358, *21 (Ill.
Jun Term 1837)
515 Daggett v. Bonewitz, 7 N.E. 900, 901, 107 Ind. 276, 276 (Ind. Jun 22, 1886)
516 State v. Tuesburg Land Co., 109 N.E. 530, 536, 61 Ind.App. 555, 555 (Ind.App. Jun 25, 1915) (NO.
8794)
517 Burlington & M.R.R. Co. v. Clingman, 43 Iowa 306, 307, 1876 WL 536, *1 (Iowa Jun 07, 1876)
518 Waters v. Bush, 42 Iowa 255, 256, 1875 WL 575, *1 (Iowa Dec 29, 1875)
519 Morrow v. Weed, 4 Clarke 77, 77, 4 Iowa 77, 81, 1856 WL 175, *2, 66 Am.Dec. 122, 122 (Iowa Aug
20, 1856)
520 Arnold v. Grimes, 2 Greene 77, 83, 1849 WL 159, *5 (Iowa May Term 1849)
521 McGannen v. Straightledge, 14 P. 452, 454, 37 Kan. 87, 87 (Kan. Jul 09, 1887)
522 Stout v. Hyatt, 13 Kan. 232, 238, 1874 WL 720, *3 (Kan. Jul Term 1874)
523 Land Grant Ry. & Trust Co. v. Davis County Com'rs, 6 Kan. 256, 265, 1870 WL 484, *5 (Kan. Jul
Term 1870)
524 Douglas County Com'rs v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 5 Kan. 615, 619, 1870 WL 558, *2 (Kan. Apr Term
1870)
525 McAlpin v. Henshaw, 6 Kan. 176, 181, 1870 WL 475, *3 (Kan. Jan Term 1870)
526 Burnes v. City of Atchison, 2 Kan. 454, 461, 1864 WL 455, *4 (Kan. Jan Term 1864)
527 Laidley v. Cummings, 7 Ky.L.Rptr. 616, 616, 83 Ky. 606, 607, 1886 WL 2020, *1 (Ky. Feb 11,
1886)
528 Riggio v. McNeely, 65 So. 552, 553, 135 La. 391, 396 (La. May 11, 1914) (NO. 20008)
529 Barrow v. Wilson, 38 La.Ann. 209, 210, 1886 WL 4296, *1 (La. Mar 1886) (NO. 9502)
530 Marks v. Martin, 27 La.Ann. 527, 528, 1875 WL 265, *1 (La. Jul 1875) (NO. 580)
531 Mechanics' & Traders' Bank v. Union Bank, 25 La.Ann. 387, 389, 1873 WL 100, *2 (La. May 1873)
(NO. 2891)
532 Lajoie v. Milliken, 136 N.E. 419, 424, 242 Mass. 508, 523 (Mass. Sep 25, 1922)
533 McElroy v. Swart, 24 N.W. 766, 766, 57 Mich. 500, 500 (Mich. Sep 29, 1885)
534 In re Selby, 6 Mich. 193, 197, 1859 WL 5160, *2 (Mich. Jan 11, 1859)
535 Stockton v. Williams, 1 Doug. 546, 552+, 1845 WL 3093, *5+ (Mich. Jan Term 1845)
536 Scott v. Detroit Young Men's Society's Lessee, 1 Doug. 119, 132, 1843 WL 1220, *8 (Mich. Jan
Term 1843)
537 Federal Land Bank of St. Paul v. Crookston Trust Co., 230 N.W. 797, 800, 180 Minn. 319, 324
(Minn. May 09, 1930) (NO. 27746)
538 Russell v. Lowth, 21 Minn. 167, 170, 1874 WL 3777, *3, 18 Am.Rep. 389, 389 (Minn. Dec 17,
1874)
539 Lee v. O'Shaughnessy, 20 Minn. 173, 159, 1873 WL 8816, *1, 20 Gil. 157, 157 (Minn. Apr Term
1873)
540 Warren County v. Catchings, 46 So. 709, 710, 94 Miss. 18, 18 (Miss. Jun 22, 1908) (NO. 13,374)
541 Stevenson's Heirs v. McReary, 12 Smedes & M. 9, 9, 20 Miss. 9, 30, 1849 WL 2230, *13, 51
Am.Dec. 102, 102 (Miss.Err. & App. Jan Term 1849)
542 Wray v. Doe, 10 Smedes & M. 452, 452+, 18 Miss. 452, 459+, 1848 WL 2000, *4+ (Miss.Err. &
App. Jan Term 1848)
543 Niles v. Anderson, 5 Howard 365, 365, 6 Miss. 365, 368, 1841 WL 1839, *3 (Miss.Err. & App. Jan
Term 1841)
544 De Lassus v. Winn, 74 S.W. 635, 636, 174 Mo. 636, 636 (Mo. Mar 31, 1903)
545 Cummings v. Powell, 20 S.W. 486, 487 (Mo. Nov 15, 1892)
546 Prior v. Scott, 87 Mo. 303, 305, 1885 WL 7975, *1 (Mo. Oct Term 1885)
547 Clarkson v. Buchanan, 53 Mo. 563, 566, 1873 WL 8015, *2 (Mo. Oct Term 1873)
548 Shepley v. Cowan, 52 Mo. 559, 561, 1873 WL 107, *1 (Mo. Mar Term 1873)
549 Glasgow v. Lindell's Heirs, 50 Mo. 60, 65, 1872 WL 7692, *3 (Mo. Mar Term 1872)
550 Barton County v. Walser, 47 Mo. 189, 191, 1871 WL 7513, *2 (Mo. Jan Term 1871)
551 St. Louis Public Schools v. Walker, 40 Mo. 383, 404, 1867 WL 4847, *13 (Mo. Mar Term 1867)
552 Eberle v. Board, etc., of St. Louis Public Schools, 11 Mo. 247, 256, 1848 WL 3942, *8 (Mo. Mar
Term 1848)
553 West v. Minneapolis Mining & Smelting Co., 217 P. 342, 344, 68 Mont. 253, 253 (Mont. Jul 11,
1923) (NO. 5203)
554 Horsky v. Moran, 53 P. 1064, 1067, 21 Mont. 345, 345 (Mont. Jul 25, 1898)
555 Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Majors, 2 P. 322, 325, 5 Mont. 111, 111 (Mont.Terr. Jan 09, 1884)
556 Meyendorf v. Frohner, 3 Mont. 282, 314, 1879 WL 7171, *17 (Mont.Terr. Jan Term 1879)
557 Eaton v. Badger, 33 N.H. 228, 233+, 1856 WL 2717, *5+ (N.H. 1856)
558 Dugan v. Montoya, 173 P. 118, 121+, 24 N.M. 102, 102+ (N.M. Feb 16, 1918) (NO. 2098)
559 U.S. Trust Co. of New York v. Blake, 137 N.E. 327, 330, 234 N.Y. 273, 283 (N.Y. Nov 21, 1922)
560 Garcia v. Callender, 26 N.E. 283, 284, 80 Sickels 307, 125 N.Y. 307, 311 (N.Y. Jan 13, 1891)
561 Sipple v. State, 16 Abb. N. Cas. 429, 429, 1 N.E. 892, 892, 54 Sickels 284, 284, 99 N.Y. 284, 284
(N.Y. Jun 09, 1885)
562 Risley v. Phenix Bank, 38 Sickels 318, 83 N.Y. 318, 337, 1881 WL 1593, *1593 (N.Y. Jan 18, 1881)
563 Ferguson v. Crawford, 25 Sickels 253, 253, 70 N.Y. 253, 259, 1877 WL 12037, *5, 26 Am.Rep. 589,
589 (N.Y. 1877)
564 Buffalo & S.L.R. Co. v. Erie County Sup'rs, 3 Sickels 93, 93, 48 N.Y. 93, 99, 1871 WL 9894, *4
(N.Y. 1871)
565 Holbrook v. Orgler, 49 How. Pr. 289, 295, 8 Jones & S. 33, 33, 40 N.Y.Super.Ct. 33, 33 (N.Y.Super.
1875)
566 Merritt v. Merritt, 19 N.Y.S.2d 85, 87, 259 A.D. 242, 244 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept. Apr 05, 1940)
567 Mawhinney v. Millbrook Woolen Mills, 172 N.Y.S. 461, 464, 105 Misc. 99, 105 (N.Y.Sup. Nov 11,
1918)
568 Bradley v. Bauder, 1880 WL 58, *1, 36 Ohio St. 28, 29, 38 Am.Rep. 547, 547 (Ohio Jan Term 1880)
569 Bowman v. Western Union Tel. Co., 31 Ohio Dec. 516, 521, 23 Ohio N.P.(N.S.) 118, 118, 1920 WL
600, *3 (Ohio Com.Pl. Mar 27, 1920)
570 Lowe v. Dickson, 236 P. 399, 401, 108 Okla. 241, 241, 1924 OK 1103, 1103 (Okla. Dec 09, 1924)
(NO. 14001)
571 Mozley v. Coleman, 212 P. 431, 436, 88 Okla. 118, 118, 1923 OK 29, 29 (Okla. Jan 16, 1923) (NO.
10705) (in dissent)
572 National Sur. Co. v. S.H. Hanson Builders' Supply Co., 165 P. 1136, 1138, 64 Okla. 59, 59, 1917 OK
222, 222 (Okla. May 15, 1917) (NO. 6876)
573 Enid & A. Ry. Co. v. Kephart, 91 P. 1049, 1053, 19 Okla. 1, 1, 1906 OK 81, 81 (Okla.Terr. Sep 06,
1906)
574 Hough v. Porter, 98 P. 1083, 1090, 51 Or. 318, 388 (Or. Jan 05, 1909)
575 Appeal of Ulshafer, 1883 WL 13642, *3, 1 Walk. 457, 460 (Pa. 1883)
576 Killpatrick v. Frost, 2 Grant 168, 182, 1858 WL 7626, *11 (Pa. 1858)
577 Pattison v. Wilbur, 10 R.I. 448, 451, 1873 WL 3543, *3, 12 N.B.R. 193, 193 (R.I. Mar Term 1873)
578 Angell v. Robbins, 4 R.I. 493, 501, 1857 WL 2363, *5 (R.I. Mar Term 1857)
579 McCreery v. Davis, 22 S.E. 178, 184, 44 S.C. 195, 195, 51 Am.St.Rep. 794, 794, 28 L.R.A. 655, 655
(S.C. Apr 20, 1895)
580 Bernardy v. Colonial & U.S. Mortg. Co., 98 N.W. 166, 171, 17 S.D. 637, 637, 106 Am.St.Rep. 791,
791 (S.D. Feb 03, 1904)
581 Morris v. Creed, 58 Tenn. 155, 159, 1872 WL 4006, *2, 11 Heisk. 155, 155 (Tenn. Sep Term 1872)
582 Gullett v. O'Connor, 54 Tex. 408, 414, 1881 WL 9702, *3 (Tex. 1881) (NO. 1250)
583 French v. Grenet, 57 Tex. 273, 276, 1881 WL 4053, *3 (Tex. 1881) (NO. 4288)
584 Fannin County v. Riddle, 51 Tex. 360, 368, 1879 WL 7679, *6 (Tex. 1879)
585 State v. Galveston City Co., 38 Tex. 12, 27, 1873 WL 7355, *10 (Tex. 1873)
586 Houston Tap & B. Ry. Co. v. Randolph, 24 Tex. 317, 328, 1859 WL 6432, *9 (Tex. 1859)
587 Horan v. Wahrenberger, 9 Tex. 313, 321, 1852 WL 4056, *5, 58 Am.Dec. 145, 145 (Tex. 1852)
588 Jones v. Menard, 1 Tex. 771, 774, 1847 WL 3504, *4 (Tex. Dec Term 1847)
589 Sutherland v. De Leon, 1 Tex. 250, 296, 1846 WL 3617, *29, 46 Am.Dec. 100, 100 (Tex. Dec Term
1846)
590 Ferry v. Street, 11 P. 571, 576, 4 Utah 521, 521 (Utah Terr. Jul 22, 1886)
591 Curry v. Wilson, 107 P. 367, 368, 57 Wash. 509, 513 (Wash. Mar 01, 1910)
592 Samish Boom Co. v. Callvert, 68 P. 367, 368, 27 Wash. 611, 613 (Wash. Mar 12, 1902)
593 Brothertown Realty Corporation v. Reedal, 227 N.W. 390, 391, 200 Wis. 465, 465 (Wis. Nov 05,
1929)
594 Miller v. Donahue, 71 N.W. 900, 904, 96 Wis. 498, 498 (Wis. Jun 11, 1897)
595 Lamont v. Stimson, 5 Wis. 443, 446, 1856 WL 3887, *3 (Wis. 1856)
596 Lamont v. Stimson, 3 Wis. 545, 554, 1854 WL 3455, *6, 62 Am.Dec. 696, 696 (Wis. Jun Term 1854)
597 Henen v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 17 W.Va. 881, 887, 1881 WL 3802, *3802 (W.Va. May 07, 1881)
Administrative Decisions (U.S.A.)
Interior Board of Land Appeals Decisions

598 PATHFINDER MINES CORP., Gower Federal Service (MIN) 61(1983) (1983)
599 DOUGLAS E. SMITH, Gower Federal Service (O&G) 39(1983) (1982)
600 MARY MARGARET WEAR ET AL., Gower Federal Services (MISC) 152(1982) (1982)
601 DOLORES OLSEN AND WESLEY E. MACE, ET AL., Gower Federal Service (MIN) 31(1980)
(1980)
602 STARLING BROKERS ET AL., Gower Federal Service - CON 108 (1972) (1972)
U.S. Attorney General Opinions

603 38 U.S. Op. Atty. Gen. 445, VALIDITY OF EXECUTIVE ORDER AUTHORIZING THE
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE TO ACQUIRE LAND FOR WILDLIFE CONSERVATION
PURPOSES (1936)
604 37 U.S. Op. Atty. Gen. 395, CLASSIFICATION OF ARMY OFFICERS (1934)
605 36 U.S. Op. Atty. Gen. 500, APPLICATION FOR PATENT TO LODE MINING CLAIM ON
MOLATE ISLAND, CALIFORNIA (1931)
606 29 U.S. Op. Atty. Gen. 205, PORTO RICO-TRANSFER OF NAVAL STATIONS. (1911)
607 28 U.S. Op. Atty. Gen. 424, FOREST RESERVES-ENTRY OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS. (1910)
608 26 U.S. Op. Atty. Gen. 91, SUBIG BAY NAVAL RESERVATION-JURISDICTION OF THE NAVY
DEPARTMENT. (1906)
609 19 U.S. Op. Atty. Gen. 370, FORT MISSOULA MILITARY RESERVATION. (1889)
610 17 U.S. Op. Atty. Gen. 397, CASE OF W. W. ARMSTRONG. (1882)
611 17 U.S. Op. Atty. Gen. 258, INDIAN RESERVATIONS. (1882)
612 10 U.S. Op. Atty. Gen. 469, INTERNAL REVENUE DISTRICTS. (1862)
613 5 U.S. Op. Atty. Gen. 578, PUBLIC LANDS. (1852)
State Administrative Materials (U.S.A.)

614 2009 Mich. OAG No. 7229, Honorable Michelle A. McManus Honorable Jason Allen (2009)
615 CLIFFORD ERNEST TAYLOR, JR., COMPLAINANT v. DON DAVIS, ASSESSOR, JASPER
COUNTY, MISSOURI, RESPONDENT, 2008 WL 787202 (Mo.St.Tax.Com.), *3 (2008)
616 60 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 162, THE HONORABLE JOHN A. NEJEDLY HONORABLE L.A.
MORAN (1977)
Other Administrative Materials (U.S.A.)

617 Ownership of Submerged Lands in Northern Alaska in Light of Utah Division of State Lands v.
United States, 100 Decisions of the Department of the Interior 103+ (1992)
618 STATE SELECTIONS OF ONSHORE LANDS UNDERLYING NAVIGABLE WATERS IN THE
GEOGRAPHIC AREA OF REVOKED PUBLIC LAND ORDER 82, 91 Decisions of the
Department of the Interior 67 (1983)
619 Pathfinder Mines Corp., 90 Decisions of the Department of the Interior 10 (1983)
620 NORTHWAY NATIVES, INC., 87 Decisions of the Department of the Interior 603+ (1980)
621 DOYON, LIMITED, 87 Decisions of the Department of the Interior 480+ (1980)
622 A. W. SCHUNK, 81 Decisions of the Department of the Interior 401+ (1974)
623 STATE OF UTAH, 70 Decisions of the Department of the Interior 27 (1963)
624 CAN A PARTNERSHIP COMPOSED PARTLY OF MINORS BE A RECOGNIZED APPLICANT
FOR OIL AND GAS LEASES, 64 Decisions of the Department of the Interior 351 (1957)
625 APPLICABILITY OF STATE COMMUNITY PROPERTY LAWS TO FEDERAL OIL AND GAS
LEASES WITH RESPECT TO ACREAGE LIMITATIONS, 64 Decisions of the Department of the
Interior 44 (1957)
626 SCHOOL SECTIONS RESERVED FOR THE TERRITORY OF ALASKA BY THE ACT OF
MARCH 4, 1915 (38 STAT. 1214), AS AMENDED (48 U. S. C. SEC. 353), AND LIEU
SELECTIONS MADE UNDER THAT ACT, 64 Decisions of the Department of the Interior 27
(1957)
627 UNITED STATES v. R. G. CROCKER ET AL., 60 Decisions of the Department of the Interior 285
(1949)
628 DAVID B. MORGAN, ASSIGNEE OF SOLDIERS' ADDITIONAL HOMESTEAD RIGHTS, 60
Decisions of the Department of the Interior 266 (1948)
629 FUNCTIONS OF OIL AND GAS DIVISION, 59 Decisions of the Department of the Interior 552
(1947)
630 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 59 Decisions of the Department of the Interior 402+ (1947)
631 J. C. ALDRICH, 59 Decisions of the Department of the Interior 176+ (1946)
632 LOYAL N. MASSEY LEONA MASSEY, 59 Decisions of the Department of the Interior 81 (1945)
633 DELEGATION BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR IN THE FIELD OF INDIAN
AFFAIRS, 58 Decisions of the Department of the Interior 499 (1943)
634 AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO WITHDRAW PUBLIC LANDS, 57
Decisions of the Department of the Interior 331 (1941)
635 OBLIGATION OF THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
FOR DAMAGES TO LANDS OF CHEMEHUEVI INDIANS, 57 Decisions of the Department of
the Interior 87 (1939)
636 TOWL ET AL. v. KELLY AND BLANKENSHIP, 54 Decisions of the Department of the Interior
455 (1934)
637 NATIONAL CEMETERIES WITHIN INDIAN RESERVATIONS, 52 Public Lands Decisions 210
(1927)
638 EFFECT OF AN EXECUTIVE WITHDRAWAL UPON TIMBER AND STONE ENTRIES PRIOR
TO SUBMISSION OF FINAL PROOF AND PAYMENT OF PURCHASE MONEYS, 52 Public
Lands Decisions 102 (1927)

639 RUST-OWEN LUMBER COMPANY (ON REHEARING), 50 Public Lands Decisions 678 (1924)
640 Donald C. Wheeler, 48 Public Lands Decisions 94 (1921)
641 CENTRAL PACIFIC RY. CO., 45 Public Lands Decisions 502 (1916)
642 JULIA E. WARD ET AL, 41 Public Lands Decisions 634 (1913)
643 JOHN H. MASON, 41 Public Lands Decisions 361 (1912)
644 39 Public Lands Decisions 411 (1910)
645 JOHN M. KANE, 37 Public Lands Decisions 277 (1908)
646 ANDREW J. BILLAN, 36 Public Lands Decisions 334 (1908)
647 STATE OF LOUISIANA, 33 Public Lands Decisions 13+ (1904)
648 STATE OF MINNESOTA, 32 Public Lands Decisions 325 (1903)
649 A. WILBUR CATLIN, 32 Public Lands Decisions 300 (1903)
650 LEAMING v. MCKENNA, 31 Public Lands Decisions 318 (1902)
651 HARKRADER ET AL. v. GOLDSTEIN, 31 Public Lands Decisions 87 (1901)
652 J. M. LONGNECKER (ON REVIEW), 30 Public Lands Decisions 611 (1901)
653 STATE OF LOUISIANA, 30 Public Lands Decisions 472 (1901)
654 JACK B. BAKER, 29 Public Lands Decisions 563 (1900)
655 BARBOUR v. WILSON ET AL (ON REVIEW), 28 Public Lands Decisions 61 (1899)
656 NORTHERN PACIFIC R. R. CO., 27 Public Lands Decisions 505 (1898)
657 REMLINGER v. MORELAND, 21 Public Lands Decisions 331 (1895)
658 PUYALLUP ALLOTMENTS, 20 Public Lands Decisions 157 (1895)
659 MATHER ET AL. v. HACKLEY'S HEIRS (ON REVIEW), 19 Public Lands Decisions 48 (1894)
660 UNITED STATES v. NORTHERN PACIFIC R. R. CO., 18 Public Lands Decisions 290 (1894)
661 HYDE ET AL. v. WARREN ET AL., 14 Public Lands Decisions 576 (1892)
662 THUNIE v. ST. PAUL, MINNEAPOLIS AND MANITOBA RY. CO., 14 Public Lands Decisions
545+ (1892)
663 STEBBINS v. CROKE, 14 Public Lands Decisions 498 (1892)
664 OREGON CENTRAL R. R. CO. v. JONES, 14 Public Lands Decisions 283 (1892)
665 BRITTON WILLIAMS, 14 Public Lands Decisions 3 (1892)
666 JOHN W. WEBER, 12 Public Lands Decisions 563 (1891)
667 STATE OF OHIO (ON REVIEW), 10 Public Lands Decisions 394+ (1890)
668 FRANK BURNS, 10 Public Lands Decisions 365 (1890)
669 NORTHERN PAC. R. R. CO. v. MARTIN, 6 Public Lands Decisions 657 (1888)
670 Indian Allotments--Old Columbia Reservation, 6 Public Lands Decisions 43 (1887)
671 MILTON TOWNSITE v. GANN, 4 Public Lands Decisions 584 (1886)
672 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 3 Public Lands Decisions 327 (1885)

673 DAVID P. LITZ, 3 Public Lands Decisions 181 (1884)
674 WEIMER ET AL v. ROSS, 3 Public Lands Decisions 129 (1884)
675 PERKINS v. CENTRAL PAC. R. R. CO., 1 Public Lands Decisions 336+ (1882)
676 ATLANTIC AND PAC. R. R. CO. v. FISHER, 1 Public Lands Decisions 392 (1882)
677 LEWIS ET AL. v. TOWN OF SEATTLE ET AL., 1 Public Lands Decisions 497 (1881)
Secondary Sources (U.S.A.)

678 Suit against public officer to recover possession of property as suit against state or Federal
government, 160 A.L.R. 332 (1946)
679 2 Patton and Palomar on Land Titles s 293, Entries, receipts, and certificates (2010)
680 Tiffany Real Property s 949, Patents (2009)
681 Am. Jur. 2d Constitutional Law s 308, Executive power (2010)
682 Am. Jur. 2d Military and Civil Defense s 17, Organization (2010)
683 CJS Motions and Orders s 75, Void and voidable orders (2010)
684 CJS Public Lands s 26, What law governs (2010)
685 CJS Public Lands s 82, How reservation accomplished (2010)
686 CJS United States s 49, Generally (2010)
687 TX Jur. 3d Constitutional Law s 65, Power over federal lands and federal enclaves within state
(2010)
688 CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE: ARE CHANGES TO WATER
LAW COMING?, 11 NO. 2 ABA Water Resources Committee Newsl. 2, 3 (2009)
689 JUDICIAL DEFERENCE TO ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION -- A REVISIONIST HISTORY, 43
Admin. L. Rev. 197, 245 (1991)
690 THE STRUGGLE FOR ALASKA'S SUBMERGED LAND, 5 Alaska L. Rev. 69, 132 (1988)
691 PUBLIC RIGHTS AND THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL POWER: FROM MURRAY'S LESSEE
THROUGH CROWELL TO SCHOR, 35 Buff. L. Rev. 765, 869+ (1986)
692 RETHEORIZING THE PRESUMPTION AGAINST IMPLIED REPEALS, 92 Cal. L. Rev. 487, 532
(2004)
693 PERPETUAL CONSERVATION: ACCOMPLISHING THE GOAL THROUGH PREEMPTIVE
FEDERAL EASEMENT PROGRAMS, 43 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 401, 489 (1993)
694 THE NEW FICTION: DRED SCOTT AND THE LANGUAGE OF JUDICIAL AUTHORITY, 82
Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 177, 208 (2007)
695 SUING THE PRESIDENT: NONSTATUTORY REVIEW REVISITED, 97 Colum. L. Rev. 1612,
1709 (1997)
696 LET US GO BACK AND STAND UPON THE CONSTITUTION: FEDERAL-STATE
RELATIONS IN SCOTT v. SANDFORD, 90 Colum. L. Rev. 192, 225 (1990)
697 THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT AND STATE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY: A
REINTERPRETATION, 83 Colum. L. Rev. 1889, 2005 (1983)
698 THE PROPERTY POWER, FEDERALISM, AND THE EQUAL FOOTING DOCTRINE, 80
Colum. L. Rev. 817, 839 (1980)
699 SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY AND SPECIFIC RELIEF AGAINST FEDERAL OFFICERS, 55 Colum.
L. Rev. 73, 83 (1955)
700 PRESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENTOF THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE: THE NOT-SOUNITARY EXECUTIVE, 51 Duke L.J. 963, 1013 (2001)
701 MAKING AGENCIES FOLLOW ORDERS: JUDICIAL REVIEW OF AGENCY VIOLATIONS OF
EXECUTIVE ORDER 12,291, 1983 Duke L.J. 285, 353 (1983)
702 A COMPARATIVE GUIDE TO THE WESTERN STATES' PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINES:
PUBLIC VALUES, PRIVATE RIGHTS, AND THE EVOLUTION TOWARD AN ECOLOGICAL
PUBLIC TRUST, 37 Ecology L.Q. 53, 197 (2010)
703 THE LAW OF PUBLIC RANGELAND MANAGEMENT I: THE EXTENT AND DISTRIBUTION
OF FEDERAL POWER, 12 Envtl. L. 535, 621 (1982)
704 JUDICIAL REVIEW OF CONGRESS BEFORE THE CIVIL WAR, 97 Geo. L.J. 1257, 1330 (2009)
705 GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE WITH PRIVATE INTERESTS IN PUBLIC RESOURCES, 11
Harv. Envtl. L. Rev. 1, 75+ (1987)
706 EX PARTE YOUNG DOCTRINE., 111 Harv. L. Rev. 269, 279+ (1997)
707 SUITS AGAINST GOVERNMENT OFFICERS AND THE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
DOCTRINE, 59 Harv. L. Rev. 1060, 1086 (1946)
708 SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY IN SUITS TO ENJOIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF
UNCONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATION, 50 Harv. L. Rev. 956, 963 (1937)
709 THE KING IS DEAD, LONG LIVE THE KING! THE COURT-CREATED AMERICAN
CONCEPT OF IMMUNITY: THE NEGATION OF EQUALITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY
UNDER LAW, 24 Hofstra L. Rev. 981, 1067+ (1996)
710 IN RE SEALED CASE- BRIEF ON BEHALF OF AMICUS CURIAE UNITED STATES, 16
Hofstra L. Rev. 97, 130+ (1987)
711 GRAZING RIGHTS ON PUBLIC LANDS: WAYNE HAGE COMPLAINS OF A TAKING, 30
Idaho L. Rev. 603, 629+ (1994)
712 FROM PENS TO PIXELS: TEXT-MEDIA ISSUES IN PROMULGATING, ARCHIVING, AND
USING JUDICIAL OPINIONS, 4 J. App. Prac. & Process 353, 416 (2002)
713 THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER BOUNDARY ON FRESHWATER LAKES AND STREAMS:
ORIGIN, THEORY, AND CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS, 6 J. Land Use & Envtl. L. 205,
240+ (1991)
714 THIS LAND IS OUR LAND: RANCHERS SEEK PRIVATE RIGHTS IN THE PUBLIC
RANGELANDS, 21 J. Land Resources & Envtl. L. 461, 487+ (2001)
715 ADMINISTRATIVE STATUTORY INTERPRETATION IN THE ANTEBELLUM REPUBLIC,
2009 Mich. St. L. Rev 7, 49 (2009)
716 KIMMEL, SHORT, MCVAY: CASE STUDIES IN EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY, LAW AND THE
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS OF MILITARY COMMANDERS, 156 Mil. L. Rev. 52, 199 (1998)
717 REFUTING THE "CLASSIC' PROPERTY CLAUSE THEORY, 63 N.C. L. Rev. 617, 658+ (1985)
718 PRIOR APPROPRIATION AND THE PROPERTY CLAUSE: A DIALOGUE OF
ACCOMODATION, 71 Or. L. Rev. 381, 408+ (1992)
719 A COMPARATIVE GUIDE TO THE EASTERN PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINES:
CLASSIFICATIONS OF STATES, PROPERTY RIGHTS, AND STATE SUMMARIES, 16 Penn St.
Envtl. L. Rev. 1, 113 (2007)
720 INTERPOSITION-WILD WEST WATER STYLE, 17 Stan. L. Rev. 1, 38+ (1964)
721 THE POWER OF CONGRESS UNDER THE PROPERTY CLAUSE: A POTENTIAL CHECK ON
THE EFFECT OF THE CHADHA DECISION ON PUBLIC LAND LEGISLATION, 6 Pub. Land
L. Rev. 65, 89+ (1985)

722 THE CONSTITUTION IN THE SUPREME COURT: THE PROTECTION OF ECONOMIC
INTERESTS, 1889-1910, 52 U. Chi. L. Rev. 324, 388 (1985)
723 THE PROPERTY CLAUSE: AS IF BIODIVERSITY MATTERED, 75 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1195,
1240+ (2004)
724 GRANITE ROCK: INSTITUTIONAL COMPETENCE AND THE STATE ROLE IN FEDERAL
LAND PLANNING, 59 U. Colo. L. Rev. 475, 516 (1988)
725 WILD BURROS, FENCES, AND ARPA: VIEWING THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PROTECTION ACT AS PROPERTY CLAUSE LEGISLATION, 5 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 109, 127
(2002)
726 NAKED LAND TRANSFERS AND AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT, 53
Vand. L. Rev. 73, 89+ (2000)
727 ADAPTING TO CLIMATE CHANGE: THE POTENTIAL ROLE OF STATE COMMON-LAW
PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINES, 34 Vt. L. Rev. 781, 853 (2010)
728 SEPARATION OF POWERS AND THE SEPARATE TREATMENT OF CONTRACT CLAIMS
AGAINST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, 43 Vill. L. Rev.
155, 218 (1998)
729 VOLS. 3-4 THE OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES DEVISE HISTORY OF THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE UNITED STATES: THE MARSHALL COURT AND CULTURAL CHANGE, 1815-35.
BY G. EDWARD WHITE. MACMILLAN PUBLISHING CO., NEW YORK, 1988, pp. xxi, 1009,,
75 Va. L. Rev. 1429, 1460 (1989)
730 SHOWDOWN AT THE OK CORRAL-WYOMING'S CHALLENGE TO U.S. SUPREMACY ON
FEDERAL SPLIT ESTATE LANDS, 6 Wyo. L. Rev. 31, 51 (2006)
731 RECOVERING AMERICAN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: FEDERALIST FOUNDATIONS, 17871801, 115 Yale L.J. 1256, 1344 (2006)
732 THE EXERCISE OF THE PARDONING POWER IN THE PHILIPPINES, 12 Yale L.J. 405, 409
(1903)
733 THE MISSION OF GOV. TAFT TO THE VATICAN, 12 Yale L.J. 1, 7 (1902)
734 CROCI Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education Materials 2-1, DEEDS (2008)
735 38056 National Business Institute 7, TAX SALES UNDER THE REAL ESTATE TAX SALE LAW
(2007)
736 RELATIVE PROPERTY INTERESTS ON THE FEDERAL OIL AND GAS LEASE, 2008 NO. 1
Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation Institute PAPER NO. 13B (2008)
737 CONFLICTING JURISDICTIONS OF FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES: THE
FEDERAL PREEMPTION DOCTRINE, 31 Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation Institute 1
(1985) (1985)
738 MINERAL OWNERSHIP BENEATH RAILROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY, 31 Rocky Mountain
Mineral Law Foundation Institute 17 (1985) (1985)
739 WATT'S UP FOR PATENTING? Excess Reserves and Other Mysteries, 29 Rocky Mountain Mineral
Law Foundation Institute 8 (1983) (1983)
Court Documents
Appellate Court Documents (U.S.A.)
Appellate Petitions, Motions and Filings

740 State of Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, 2008 WL 2323310, *2323310+ (Appellate Petition,
Motion and Filing) (U.S. Jun 02, 2008) Amicus Brief of the States of Washington, Alabama,
Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, ... (NO. 07-1372) "
741 Advanced Cardiac Solutions, P.C. v. Central Admixture Pharmacy Services, Inc., 2007 WL 2323453,
*2323453 (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Aug 14, 2007) Petition for Writ of
Certiorari with Appendix (NO. 07-192)
742 Seneca Nation of Indians v. State of New York, 2006 WL 160087, *160087+ (Appellate Petition,
Motion and Filing) (U.S. Jan 17, 2006) Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (NO. 05-905)
743 Carl Edwin FAGERMAN & Bertha Louise Fagerman, Petitioner(s), v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION, Respondent(s)., 2003 WL 22428977, *22428977+ (Appellate Petition,
Motion and Filing) (U.S. Aug 28, 2003) Petition for Writ of Certiorari (NO. 03-378)
744 Utah v. Tribe, 1986 WL 766674, *766674+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. May 05,
1986) Petition (NO. 85-1821)
745 SENECA NATION OF INDIANS, Plaintiff-Appellant, Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians,
Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant, United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant, v. The State
of New York, et al., Defendants-Appellees, Moore Business Forms Corp, individually and as a
representative of a class of landowners similarly situated, Defendant-Appellee-Cross Appellant,
George Pataki, Governor, State of New York, Bernadette, 2005 WL 3949275, *3949275 (Appellate
Petition, Motion and Filing) (2nd Cir. Jan 07, 2005) Petition for Rehearing and for Rehearing En
Banc of the Seneca Nation of Indians and the Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians (NO. 026185(L))
746 SENECA NATION OF INDIANS, Plaintiff-Appellant, Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians,
Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant, United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant, v. THE
STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants-Appellees, Moore Business Forms Corp, individually
and as a representative of a class of landowners similarly situated, Defendant-Appellee-Cross
Appellant, George Pataki, Governor, State of New York, Bernadette, 2005 WL 3966017, *3966017
(Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (2nd Cir. Jan 07, 2005) Petition for Rehearing and for
Rehearing En Banc of the Seneca Nation of Indians and the Tonawanda Band of Seneca
Indians (NO. 02-6185(L))
747 FIDELITY EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION CO., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, et al., Defendants-Appellees., 2007 WL 984192, *984192+ (Appellate Petition, Motion
and Filing) (9th Cir. Jan 16, 2007) Brief of Appellees United States of America, et al. (NO. 0635307)
Appellate Briefs
748 United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 2009 WL 3825875, *3825875+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S.
Nov 12, 2009) Reply Brief for Petitioner (NO. 08-1134)
Oct 13, 2009) Brief for Respondent (NO. 08-1134)
Aug 28, 2009) Brief for Petitioner (NO. 08-1134)
751 Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 2009 WL 2406375,
*2406375 (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Aug 03, 2009) Brief of %iAmicus Curiae%i The Claremont
Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence In Support of Petitioners (NO. 08-861)
752 State of Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, 2008 WL 5236222, *5236222+ (Appellate Brief)
(U.S. Dec 11, 2008) Amicus Brief of the States of Washington, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona,
Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, ... (NO. 07-1372) "
753 State of Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, 1998 WL 665665, *665665+ (Appellate
Brief) (U.S. Sep 25, 1998) BRIEF FOR RESPONDENTS ST. CROIX CHIPPEWA INDIANS
OF WISCONSIN, SOKAOGON CHIPPEWA COMMUNITY AND LAC COURTE
OREILLES BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA INDIANS OF WISCONSIN (NO. 971337) "
754 Alexia MORRISON, Independent Counsel, appellant, v. Theodore B. OLSON, et al., 1988 WL
1031600, *1031600+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Apr 08, 1988) Brief for the United States as Amicus
Curiae Supporting Appellees (NO. 87-1279)
755 PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY and CINQUE BAMBINI PARTNERSHIP, Petitioners, v.
State of Mississippi, and Saga Petroleum U.S., Inc., Respondents., 1987 WL 881386, *881386+
(Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jul 11, 1987) Brief of the States of California, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona,
Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas, and Washington as Amici Curiae
in Support of Respondents (NO. 86-870)
756 State of Utah, by and through its Division of State Lands, Petitioner, v. United States of America, et
al., 1987 WL 880923, *880923+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Feb 06, 1987) Brief for the Respondents
(NO. 85-1772)
757 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ex rel. State Lands Commission, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, Defendant., 1982 WL 608584, *608584+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Mar 15, 1982) Brief
of Amici Curiae States of Washington, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, New Mexico and
Oregon (NO. 89, ORIGINAL)
758 Richard John MCCARTY, Appellant, v. Patricia Ann MCCARTY, Appellee., 1981 WL 390154,
*390154+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jan 1981) Brief Amici Curiae on Behalf of Certain Members of
Congress and Organizations (In Support of Appellee) (NO. 80-5) "
759 Roy Tibbals WILSON, et al., Petitioners, v. OMAHA INDIAN TRIBE and the United States of
America. State of Iowa, et al., Petitioners, v. OMAHA INDIAN TRIBE and the United States of
America., 1979 WL 199253, *199253+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Feb 23, 1979) Brief for the United
States (NO. 78-160, 78-161)
760 STATE OF OREGON, Acting by and through the State Land Board, Petitioner and Respondent, v.
CORVALLIS SAND AND GRAVEL COMPANY, an Oregon corporation, Respondent and
Petitioner., 1976 WL 181297, *181297+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Apr 08, 1976) Brief of Utah and
New Mexico as Amici Curiae (NO. 75-567, 75-577()) "
761 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner, v. Richard M. NIXON, President of the United States
et al., Respondents. Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, Cross-Petitioner, v. United
States of America, Respondent., 1973 WL 159435, *159435 (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jul 1973) Reply
Brief for the Respondent, Cross-Petitioner Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States
(NO. 73-1766, 73-1834)
762 Choctaw Nation v. Oklahoma, 1969 WL 120138, *120138+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jul 22, 1969)
The Brief of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations (NO. 41, 59)
763 Wallis v. Pan American Petroleum Co., 1966 WL 100488, *100488+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Feb
1966) Reply Brief Of Wallis. (NO. 341) "
764 Wallis v. Pan American Petroleum Corp., 1966 WL 100486, *100486+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jan
31, 1966) Brief for Patrick A. McKenna (NO. 341) "
765 Wallis v. Pan American Petroleum Corp., 1965 WL 115426, *115426+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Dec
20, 1965) Brief for Floyd A. Wallis. (NO. 341)
766 Hawaii v. Bell, 1962 WL 94550, *94550+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Aug 21, 1962) Plaintiff's Reply
Brief (NO. 12, ORIGINAL)
767 Hawaii v. Bell, 1962 WL 94551, *94551+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Apr 19, 1962) Brief in Support of
Motion for Leave to File Complaint (NO. 12, ORIGINAL) "
768 Benz v. New York State Thruway Authority, 1961 WL 101870, *101870+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S.
Dec 07, 1961) Brief for the Petitioner (NO. 234)
769 Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 1950 WL 78458, *78458+ (Appellate Brief)
(U.S. Oct 03, 1950) Brief for Respondents (NO. 8)
770 Kennedy v. Silas Mason Co., 1948 WL 47461, *47461+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Apr 16, 1948) Brief
Amici Curiae (NO. 590)
771 U.S. v. Wyoming, 1947 WL 44122, *44122+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Mar 31, 1947) Brief of
Defendants, State of Wyoming and the Ohio Oil Company. (NO. 10ORIGINAL) "
772 U.S. v. Lovett, 1946 WL 50580, *50580+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Apr 22, 1946) Brief for
Respondents (NO. 809, 810, 811)
773 Smith v. U.S., 1945 WL 48919, *48919+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Oct 26, 1945) Joint Brief for
Petitioners (NO. 66, 292)
774 Nebraska v. Wyoming, 1945 WL 48351, *48351 (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jan 24, 1945) Brief for the
United States of America, Intervenor (NO. 6)
775 Rodiek v. U.S., 1942 WL 53588, *53588+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Feb 12, 1942) Petitioner's Reply
Brief. (NO. 325)
776 U.S. v. Santa Fe Pacific R. Co., 1941 WL 76696, *76696+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Oct 13, 1941)
Respondent's Brief. (NO. 23)
777 U.S. v. Santa Fe Pacific R. Co., 1941 WL 76695, *76695+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Sep 22, 1941)
Brief for the United States (NO. 23)
778 U.S. v. Northern Pacific Railway Co., 1940 WL 47066, *47066+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Feb 1940)
Brief for the United States (NO. 3, 4)
779 Union Joint Stock Land Bank of Detroit v. Byerly, 1939 WL 48686, *48686+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S.
Oct Term 1939) Brief of the Respondent Carl Byerly (NO. 579)
780 Woodring v. Wardell, 1939 WL 48507, *48507 (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Oct 05, 1939) Brief for The
Respondent. (NO. 5)
781 Montana v. Bruce, 1938 WL 39057, *39057+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Nov 08, 1938) Brief for the
Intervenors and Respondents (NO. 104)
782 Minnesota v. U.S., 1938 WL 63941, *63941+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Nov 1938) Brief for the
United States (NO. 73)
783 Montana v. Bruce, 1938 WL 39055, *39055+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jul 23, 1938) Brief for the
Intervenors and Respondents. (NO. 104)
784 Anniston Mfg. Co. v. Davis, 1937 WL 40706, *40706+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Mar 27, 1937) Brief
Filed By Malcolm Donald As Amicus Curiae on Behalf of Pacific Mills (NO. 667)
785 Bourdieu v. Pacific Western Oil Co., 1936 WL 64957, *64957+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Oct 01,
1936) Brief for Respondents.%n*%n (NO. 2)
786 Borax Consol. Ltd. v. City of Los Angeles, 1935 WL 32997, *32997 (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Oct 10,
1935) Brief on Behalf of Respondent. (NO. 34)
787 California Oregon Power Co. v. Beaver Portland Cement Co., 1935 WL 32824, *32824 (Appellate
Brief) (U.S. Apr 04, 1935) Petitioner's Reply Brief. (NO. 612)
788 California Oregon Power Co. v. Beaver Portland Cement Co., 1934 WL 32088, *32088 (Appellate
Brief) (U.S. Oct Term 1934) Petitioner's Brief (NO. 612)

789 Miguel v. McCarl, 1933 WL 32134, *32134+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Dec 30, 1933) Brief on Behalf
of Petitioner. (NO. 435)
790 U.S. v. Wilbur, 1931 WL 32922, *32922+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Apr 11, 1931) Brief for the
Respondents (NO. 618, 676, 704, 743)
791 Group No. 1 Oil Corp. v. Bass, 1931 WL 32223, *32223+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jan 26, 1931)
Brief for Petitioner (NO. 425)
792 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramiro L. COLON-MUNOZ, DefendantAppellant., 1999 WL 33910679, *33910679+ (Appellate Brief) (1st Cir. Jul 02, 1999) Brief of the
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (""NACDL'') as Amicus Curiae Supporting
the Reversal of Appellant Col%21on-Munoz' Conviction (NO. 98-1684)
793 UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Robert G. BEVERLY, Defendant, Appellant., 1993 WL 13625128,
*13625128+ (Appellate Brief) (1st Cir. Jan 27, 1993) Brief for Appellant (NO. 92-2478)
794 Ashok KASHELKAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Andrew Lavoott BLUESTONE, Esq. Warren S. Hecht,
Esq. Sandback, Birnbaum & Michelen, Defendants-Appelles., 2008 WL 5971974, *5971974
(Appellate Brief) (2nd Cir. Apr 22, 2008) Plaintiff Appellant's Brief (NO. 07-4805CV)
795 Ashok KASHELKAR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COUNTY OF ROCKLAND; Hon. Michael E.
Bongiorno - District Attorney, County of Rockland, Defendants - Appellees Village of Spring Valley,
Spring Valley Police Department; Police Officer J. Beltempo - Shield No 592, Defendants., 2007 WL
6923729, *6923729 (Appellate Brief) (2nd Cir. Nov 27, 2007) Appellant's Brief-in Support of his
Appeals (NO. 072500CV)
796 Edward Morris HARRIS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. K. J. WENDT, Warden, Seagoville Federal
Detention Center, City of Seagoville, Texas, Respondent., 2004 WL 3167392, *3167392+ (Appellate
Brief) (5th Cir. Jun 23, 2004) Appellant's Opening Brief%n1%n (NO. 04-10503)
797 Abraham Neiman CEMAJ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RespondentCounterclaimant-Appellee, v. International Bank of Commerce, Respondent on CounterclaimAppellant., 1995 WL 17117207, *17117207+ (Appellate Brief) (5th Cir. Feb 1995) Brief for the
Appellee (NO. 94-60623)
798 Julio Roberto Zarate BARQUERO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Counterclaimant-Appellee, v. International Bank of Commerce, Respondent on
Counterclaim-Appellant., 1993 WL 13099918, *13099918+ (Appellate Brief) (5th Cir. Nov 23,
1993) Brief for the Appellee (NO. 93-7447)
799 KEWEENAW BAY INDIAN COMMUNITY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert NAFTALY, chairperson
of the Michigan State Tax Commission Robert R. Lupi, member of the Michigan State Tax
Commission Douglas B. Roberts, member of the Michigan State Tax Commission, DefendantAppellant., 2005 WL 4717274, *4717274+ (Appellate Brief) (6th Cir. Dec 14, 2005) Final Brief of
Appellee Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (NO. 05-1952) "
800 KEWEENAW BAY INDIAN COMMUNITY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert NAFTALY, chairperson
of the Michigan State Tax Commission; Robert R. Lupi, member of the Michigan State Tax
Commission; Douglas B. Roberts, member of the Michigan State Tax Commission, DefendantAppellant., 2005 WL 4132163, *4132163+ (Appellate Brief) (6th Cir. Dec 06, 2005) Final Brief of
Appellee Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (NO. 05-1952) "
801 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Donald MINNIECHESKE, et al., Defendants., 1995
WL 17198884, *17198884+ (Appellate Brief) (7th Cir. Mar 21, 1995) Brief-in-Chief and Appendix
of Defendant-Appellant (NO. 95-1324)
802 AVISTA CORPORATION, INC., Plaintiff/Appellant, v. SANDERS COUNTY, Burlington Northern
and Santa Fe Railway Company, Dorrien H. Wolfe, Diane Larson, Leslie Rickey, Sean M. Stephens,
James R. Doyle, Bonnie M. Sharp, Ronald Gene Sharp, Ronald Scott Sharp, and Gregory Stewart
Sharp, Defendants/Appellees., 2007 WL 2414599, *2414599+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Jul 27,
2007) Appellant's Brief (NO. 07-35321)
803 George L. MOTHERSHED, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. David A. THOMSON; Replying Brief The
Honorable Margaret H. Downie, Superior Court Judge for the State of Arizona in and for Maricopa
County; The Honorable Peter C. Reinstein, Superior Court Judge for the State of Arizona in and for
Maricopa County; Defendants/Appellees., 2006 WL 3245278, *3245278+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir.
2006) Plaintiff/Appellant's Replying Brief (NO. 06-15473)
804 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FRAZER CHARLES MacINNES, et al.,
Defendants, U.S. FINANCIAL, L.P., Respondent-Appellant., 2005 WL 627503, *627503+
(Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Feb 10, 2005) Brief for Appellee United States (NO. 04-50494) "
805 Gene K. SMITH, Appellant/Petitioner, v. James HUNTSMAN, et. al., Appellee/Respondent., 2004
WL 1810160, *1810160 (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Jul 06, 2004) Appellant's or Petitioner's
Informal Brief (NO. 04-35256)
806 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Bailey D. PETERSON,
Defendant/Appellant., 2001 WL 34354704, *34354704+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Aug 06, 2001)
Brief of Appellee (NO. 01-30073) "
807 Brenda M. WINOGROND, a natural person, Appellant/Plaintiff, v. SHERIFF OF BROWARD
COUNTY, individually and as Sheriff of Broward County, Florida, Appellee/Defendant., 1999 WL
33644991, *33644991+ (Appellate Brief) (11th Cir. Aug 16, 1999) Appellant's Initial Brief on the
Merits (NO. 99-11223-E)
808 Salim Ahmed HAMDAN, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Donald H. RUMSFELD, U.S. Secretary of
Defense, et al,, Respondents-Appellants., 2004 WL 3080434, *3080434+ (Appellate Brief) (D.C.Cir.
Dec 20, 2004) Brief for Appellee (NO. 04-5393)
809 Abdul M. TAALIB-DIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF DETROIT; P & D D ASSESSOR'S
OFFICE, a state of Michigan Municipal Corporation; Walter C. Watkins; Margo C. Balkwill;
Kwamie Kilpatrick; Department of Natural Resources; James E. Hurst; State of Michigan; Governor
for the State of Michigan, Jennifer M. Granholm; Michigan Attorney General, Michael A. Cox;
United States of America; United States Department of the Interior; Nina Rose Hatfield; John D.
Ashcroft,, 2003 WL 23119365, *23119365 (Appellate Brief) (D.C.Cir. Dec 29, 2003) Brief for State
Defendants-Appellees Case Being Considered for Treatment Pursuant to Rule 34(j) of the
General Rules (NO. 03-5130) "
810 Abdul M. TAALIB-DIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF DETROIT; P & D D Assessor's Office, a
state of Michigan Municipal Corporation; Walter C. Watkins; Margo C. Balkwill; Kwamie
Kilpatrick; Department of Natural Resources; James E. Hurst; State of Michigan; Governor for the
State of Michigan, Jennifer M. Granholm; Michigan Attorney General, Michael A. Cox; United
States of America; United States Department of the Interior; Nina Rose Hatfield; John D. Ashcroft,,
2003 WL 25585539, *25585539+ (Appellate Brief) (D.C.Cir. Dec 29, 2003) Brief for State
Defendants-Appellees (NO. 03-5130)
811 In rem Land Patent No. 1822 Abdul M. TAALIB-DIN in proper personam, Appellant, v. City of
Detroit, P. & D.d. and Assessor's Office, a State of Michigan Municipal Corporation, Margo C.
BALKWILL, Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, Department of Natural Resources, Rodney A. Stokes,
Michigan, Governor of Michigan, United States of America; Department of Interior, Nina Rose
Hatfield A.k.a. Nina Rose Hatfield, John D. Ashcroft Attorney General; James E. Hurst, as Successor
to Rodney A., 2003 WL 23119364, *23119364+ (Appellate Brief) (D.C.Cir. Dec 23, 2003) City
Defendants'/Appellees' Brief on Appeal (NO. 03-5130) "
812 In rem Land Patent No. 1822 Abdul M. TAALIB-DIN in proper personam, Appellant, v. CITY OF
DETROIT, P. & D.d. and Assessor's Office, a State of Michigan Municipal Corporation, Margo C.
Balkwill, Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, Department of Natural Resources, Rodney A. Stokes, Michigan,
Governor of Michigan, United States of America; Department of Interior, Nina Rose Hatfield A.k.a.
Nina Rose Hatfield, John D. Ashcroft Attorney General; James E. Hurst, as Successor to Rodney A.,
2003 WL 25599410, *25599410+ (Appellate Brief) (D.C.Cir. Dec 23, 2003) City
Defendants'/Appellees' Brief on Appeal (NO. 03-5130) "
813 Steve KOSANKE, et al., Appellants, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, et
al., Appellees., 1998 WL 35241278, *35241278+ (Appellate Brief) (D.C.Cir. Jan 26, 1998)
Appellants' Final Principal Brief (NO. 97-5145)
814 STATE OF ARIZONA, ex rel. Victor M. Mendez, Director, Department of Transportation,
Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Joy H. OWENS, Defendant/Appellant., 2008 WL 609784, *609784+
(Appellate Brief) (Ariz.App. Div. 1 Jan 17, 2008) Appellant's Opening Brief (NO. 1CA-CV070868)
815 Timothy W. YEUNG and Chuanpit C. Yeung, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Emery SOOS,
Defendant and Appellant., 2004 WL 1284451, *1284451+ (Appellate Brief) (Cal.App. 2 Dist. Apr
12, 2004) Appellant's Reply Brief [Motion for Leave to Produce Additional Evidence and
Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Brief Filed Concurrently Herewith] (NO. B165939)
816 Rex Francis WALTER: Startup, et Ux Linda: Startup, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. HOME SAVINGS
OF AMERICA and Citizen's Thrift & Loan,their attorney's and related co.'s, Defendants and
Respondents., 1998 WL 34353772, *34353772 (Appellate Brief) (Cal.App. 2 Dist. Jan 20, 1998)
Opening Brief on Appeal from an Order (in Error) by Haley J. Fromholz, De Facto Judge,
Sustaining ''""Demurrers"' of Defendants (NO. B104689)
817 Calvin Belnap ROSS(R), Respondent and Appellant, v. Gail B. ROSS, Petitioner and Respondent.,
2007 WL 684416, *684416+ (Appellate Brief) (Cal.App. 4 Dist. Jan 10, 2007) Appellants Reply
Brief (ARB) (NO. D048515)
818 Dorothy L. BIERY, et al., and Jerramy and Erin Pankratz, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA, Defendant., 2009 WL 1347147, *1347147 (Appellate Brief) (Kan. Apr 15, 2009)
Brief of Plaintiffs (NO. 09-102006-5)
819 Ricky SMITH, Appellant, v. JACKSON STATE UNIVERSITY, Secretary of State of the State of
Mississippi, Department of Finance and AdinistArtion, Appellees., 2008 WL 4651500, *4651500
(Appellate Brief) (Miss. Jan 14, 2008) Appellant's Opening Brief (NO. 2007-TS-01552)
820 MINERAL COUNTY, A Political Subdivision of the State of Nevada; and the Walker Lake Working
Group, Petitioners, v. State of Nevada, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, an
Agency of the State of Nevada, Peter Morros, Director of the Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources; and R. Michael Turnipseed, State Engineer, Respondents., 2000 WL 35587072,
*35587072+ (Appellate Brief) (Nev. Oct 02, 2000) Answer to Petition for Writ of Mandamus and
Writ of Prohibition (NO. 36352)
821 Terry WOLF and Florence Wolf, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CENTRAL OREGON & PACIFIC
RAILROAD, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Respondent., 2008 WL 7573178,
*7573178+ (Appellate Brief) (Or.App. Aug 2008) Respondent's Brief and Supplemental Excerpt
of Record (NO. A136347)
822 In re the Personal Restraint of John TORTORELLI, Petitioner, v. State of Washington, Respondent.,
2002 WL 32863012, *32863012+ (Appellate Brief) (Wash. Apr 09, 2002) Brief of Amicus Curiae
State of Washington Department of Natural Resources (NO. 71251-4)
Trial Court Documents (U.S.A.)
Trial Pleadings
823 Charles Victor HOOPER; Plaintiff; v. Herbert SANDLER; Merion O. Sandler; World Savings and
Loan, an entity; Golden West Savings Assoc., Service Co. Inc., an entity, Defendants., 2005 WL
2657192, *2657192+ (Trial Pleading) (E.D.Cal. Aug 26, 2005) Lodgment of Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint for Quiet-Title Action, Breach of Contract and Fraud (NO. 205-CV-00244MCEPAN)
824 Charles Victor HOOPER, a married man; Plaintiff, v. Herbert SANDLER, a U.S. Vessel; Merion O.
Sandler, a U.S. Vessel; World Savings and Loan, an entity; Golden West Savings Asso., Service Co.
Inc., an entity; Defendants., 2005 WL 1025502, *1025502+ (Trial Pleading) (E.D.Cal. Feb 07, 2005)
Lodgment of Plaintiff's Complaint for Quiet-Title Action, Breach of Contract and Fraud (NO.
205CV-00244MCQPANPS)
825 James Mark TAIT, Petitioner, v. CLARKSTON STATE BANK Dawn Horner Shaheen, Jacobs &
Ross, P.C. William Huffman (P51651) Nick O. Holowka, Judge Kevin B. Lasser the Findling Law
Firm, PLC Erica Ehrlichman Richard A. Sabo, PLC, Respondent., 2008 WL 7095650, *7095650
(Trial Pleading) (E.D.Mich. Oct 17, 2008) Petition for Declaratory Judgment, to Quiet Title in
the Federal Court for the State Zone (NO. 08-14411)
826 Jerry James STANTON, Plaintiff, v. Nancy HUTCHINS, Branch County Register of Deeds, Bambi
Somerlott, Hillsdale County Register of Deeds, Laurie Adams, Coldwater Township Assessor,
Jeffrey Budd, Coldwater Township Treasurer, Sandra S. Thatcher, Branch County Treasurer, Robert
J. Kleine, State of Michigan Treasurer, Mike Cox, State of Michigan Attorney General, Kevin T.
Smith, State of Michigan Assistant Attorney General, Michael A. Stimpson, State of, 2010 WL
1807521, *1807521 (Trial Pleading) (W.D.Mich. Jan 26, 2010) Suit for Permanent Injunction and
Other Relief Against Violation of Federally Guaranteed Fundamental Rights (NO. 110-CV-74)
827 In pro Persona Stephen and Linda LYKENS, plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF MUSKEGON, Treasurers
Office, defendant., 2003 WL 24277762, *24277762 (Trial Pleading) (W.D.Mich. Oct 12, 2003) Civil
Action to ""Quiet Title'' on property under Original Federal Land Patent issued and brought
current in plaintiffs names with a ""Declaration of Land Patent'' on file at Muskegon County
Register ... (NO. 103CV0818)
828 Tod Maurice TODD; Plaintiff; v. James W. GAUTIER; Central Pacific Railroad Company;
Defendants., 2005 WL 3767433, *3767433+ (Trial Pleading) (D.Nev. Sep 06, 2005) Lodgment of
Complaint for Quieting Title (NO. CV-N-05-0495-ECR-VPC)
829 Richard Leland NEAL; Plaintiff, v. George G. SARGENT; Axel Ericson; Raymond S. Adams;
William H. Grisselle; Defendants., 2005 WL 3767358, *3767358+ (Trial Pleading) (D.Nev. 2005)
Lodgment of Complaint for Quieting Title (NO. CV-S-05-0954-KJD-RJJ)
830 Jerry P McNEIL, Patent Holder,ouster le mer Unrepresented Demandant and Claimant/Petitioner v.
MELISSA ANDERSON ROGERS COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR P. O. Box 5 Claremore, Oklahoma
74017., 2006 WL 824466, *824466 (Trial Pleading) (N.D.Okla. Feb 06, 2006) Within the
Admiralty Jurisdiction and Out of the Jurisdiction of any State an Action For Slander of Title
an Action For Damages Caused By Cloud on Title I Allegation of Jurisdiction (NO.
06CV073TCK-PJC)
831 John RICCIO, Plaintiff, v. Judge ERNEST C. Torres Robert Clark Corrente, U.S. Atty. Zechariah
Chafee, Assist. U.S. Atty., Defendants., 2007 WL 4767859, *4767859 (Trial Pleading) (D.R.I. May
21, 2007) Plaintiff's Complaint Against Defendant for Violating 18 U.S.C. Sec. 241, 242
Violating Individual Conspiracy to Violate 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 ""Under the Color of Law''
(NO. CA07184T)
832 Richard Leland NEAL, Plaintiff, v. SANTA FE PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, and any
unknown heir and assignees, Defendants., 2008 WL 7088995, *7088995 (Trial Pleading) (N.D.Tex.
Oct 14, 2008) Complaint Quieting Title (NO. 4-08CV-615-Y)
833 Mark Taylor MILLER, Plaintiff, v. CHASE MANHATTAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
Defendant., 2002 WL 33769945, *33769945+ (Trial Pleading) (D.Utah Jan 07, 2002) Verified
Complaint (NO. 202CV-0013J)
Trial Motions, Memoranda and Affidavits

834 WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT, Plaintiff, v. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT,
Defendant., 2009 WL 1469588, *1469588 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Ariz. Mar
13, 2009) Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (NO. 208CV01472) "
835 TWO MINERS & 8000 ACRES OF LAND (T.W. Arman and John F. Hutchens, Iron Mountain
Mines, Inc. et al) and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated Under God, Defendants, v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al, Plaintiffs. TWO MINERS & 8000 ACRES OF LAND (T.W.
Arman and John F. Hutchens, Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. et al) and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated Under God, Defendants, v. ( STATE OF CALIFORNIA, on behalf of the California
Department of Toxic, 2008 WL 5484498, *5484498 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit)
(E.D.Cal. Nov 21, 2008) Objections to Request for Delay Agreement to Request for Status
Conference On Joinder and Filing of Interpleador & Counterclaim with Constitutional
Questions; Title By Patent (NO. 291CV00768)
836 Orin LOOS, Plaintiffs, v. LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, et al., Defendants., 2006 WL
433970, *433970+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Colo. Jan 03, 2006) Opening
Brief in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 01-S-0075, PAC)
837 ORIN LOOS et al., Plaintiffs, v. LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Williams Communications,
Inc. Sprint Corporation, and Union Pacific Railroad Company, Defendants., 2005 WL 3739085,
*3739085+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Colo. Nov 01, 2005) Memorandum of
Defendants Sprint Corporation, Level 3 LLC, and Wiltel Communications, LLC in Opposition
to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification (NO. 01-CV-0075-DBS-PAC) "
838 Robert Todd HUNTER In-Care-Of, Plaintiff, v. US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION As Trustee
for the Structured Asset Investment Loan Trust 2005-8 the Structured Asset Investment Loan Trust
2005-8, Defendants., 2009 WL 4921089, *4921089 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit)
(D.D.C. Aug 27, 2009) Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Opposition to
Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (NO. 09-1205, CKK) "
839 Lawrence S. MAXWELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Tommy G. THOMPSON, Defendant., 2003 WL
24252766, *24252766 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.D.C. Apr 22, 2003) Trial
Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit (NO. 02CV1732)
840 Lawrence S. MAXWELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Tommy G. THOMPSON, Defendant., 2003 WL
24252765, *24252765 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.D.C. Apr 18, 2003) Plaintiffs'
Reply to Defendants' Reply to Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss Amended Complaint Or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (NO.
02CV1732)
841 In re: William David MILLSAPS 6:06-Bk-3372. William David MILLSAPS, Appellant, v. Marija
ARNJAS, Appellee., 2007 WL 5125502, *5125502+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit)
(M.D.Fla. Oct 24, 2007) Initial Brief of Appellant (NO. 607CV01354)
842 Howard I. BASS, d/b/a Hibco Investments, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants., 2004 WL 3721552, *3721552+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Ill.
Sep 16, 2004) Memorandum of Law in Support of United States of America's Motion for
Summary Judgment (NO. 04C1971)
843 In re: AT&T FIBER OPTIC CABLE INSTALLATION LITIGATION; This Document Relates to:
1:98-cv-1300-DFH-TAB (Hinshaw) 1:99-cv-1890-DFH-TAB (Thomson) 1:02-cv-7000-DFH-TAB
(Peterson)., 2005 WL 3708125, *3708125+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Ind.
May 27, 2005) AT&T's Reply Memorandum in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment
on Federal Land Grant Right of Way (NO. 199-ML-9313-DFH-TAB)
844 In re: AT&T FIBER OPTIC CABLE INSTALLATION LITIGATION., 2005 WL 3742090,
*3742090+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Ind. May 27, 2005) At&t's Reply
Memorandum in Support of Its Motion For Summary Judgment on Federal Land Grant Right
of Way (NO. IP99-C-9313-DFH-TAB1)
845 In re: AT&T FIBER OPTIC CABLE INSTALLATION LITIGATION. This Document Relates to:.,
2005 WL 5519605, *5519605+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Ind. May 27, 2005)
AT&T's Reply Memorandum in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment on Federal
Land Grant Right of Way (NO. 199-ML-9313-DFH-TAB1)
(Peterson)., 2005 WL 3708124, *3708124 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Ind. Apr
29, 2005) Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to AT&T's Motion for Summary Judgment
on Federal Land-Grant Right of Way (NO. 199-ML-9313-DFH-TAB)
(Peterson)., 2005 WL 3708123, *3708123 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Ind. Mar
24, 2005) Defendants' Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment on Federal
Land Grant Right of Way (NO. 199-ML-9313-DFH-TAB)
*3742083 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Ind. Mar 24, 2005) Defendants'
Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment on Federal Land Grant Right of
Way (NO. 199-ML-9313-DFH-TAB1)
*5519595 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Ind. Mar 24, 2005) Defendants'
Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment on Federal Land Grant Right of
*33988996 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Ind. 1999) Plaintiffs' Memorandum
in Opposition to AT&T's Motion for Summary Judgment on Federal Land-Grant Right of
851 In re: AT&T FIBER OPTIC CABLE INSTALLATION LITIGATION. This Document Relates to.,
1999 WL 34813978, *34813978 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Ind. 1999)
Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to AT&T's Motion for Summary Judgment on Federal
Land-Grant Right of Way (NO. 199-ML-9313-DFH-TAB1)
852 NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. COLONIAL PIPELINE
COMPANY, Defendant., 2005 WL 3082058, *3082058 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit)
(D.Md. Oct 21, 2005) Plaintiff National Railroad Passenger Corporation's Motion to Dismiss
Defendant Colonial Pipeline Company's Counterclaims for Condemnation (NO. JFM-05-CV2267)
853 DETROIT LEASING COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Louis YEPEZ, et al., Defendants., 2005 WL
3710490, *3710490 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (E.D.Mich. Jul 12, 2005) United
States' Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 04-74189, PJD)

854 Michael John MODENA, Petitioner, v. Kimberly Kay MODENA a.k.a. Kimberly Kay Leer,
Respondent., 2008 WL 2614210, *2614210 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (W.D.Mich.
Apr 21, 2008) Objection to Report AMD Recommendation U.S. Court for the State Zone (NO.
108CV00107)
855 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Charles CONCES, Individually, D/b/a Chairman of
the Lawmen, Public Interest Groups, an unincorporated organization Defendant., 2007 WL 4610766,
*4610766 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (W.D.Mich. Jan 17, 2007) ""Motion in
Opposition to Any Orders for Hearings Without Jurisdiction'', Brief, and Exhibit One (NO.
105CV0739)
856 KEWEENAW BAY INDIAN COMMUNITY, on its own behalf and as parens patriae for its
members, Plaintiff, v. Robert NAFTALY, chairperson of the Michigan State Tax Commission; Robert
R. Lupi, member of the Michigan State Tax Commission; Doug Roberts, member of the Michigan
State Tax Commission; Dennis W. Platte, Executive Secretary of the Michigan State Tax
Commission; L'anse Township in the State of Michigan; Baraga Township in the State of Michigan;
Matthew J., 2004 WL 3715510, *3715510 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (W.D.Mich.
Dec 17, 2004) Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and in
Opposition to State Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment (NO. 203CV0170)
857 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEWARK, et al., Defendants., 2008 WL
7190322, *7190322+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.N.J. Oct 24, 2008)
Memorandum of Law in Support of United States of America's Motion for Summary
Judgment (NO. 207-CV-05961)
858 State of Washington, by and through the Washington State Department of Natural Resources,
Plaintiff, v. BARNACLE POINT L.L.C., a Washington limited liability company, Defendant., 2004
WL 4008422, *4008422 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (W.D.Wash. Jan 20, 2004)
State of Washington's Motion to Remand (NO. C03-3945P)
859 MORGAN, v. USA et al., 2007 WL 6966542, *6966542+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and
Affidavit) (D.Wyo. Dec 04, 2007) Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment
(NO. 06CV00171) "
860 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. WYOMING AND COLORADO RAILROAD
COMPANY, INC., et al. Defendants., 2007 WL 6966540, *6966540+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum
and Affidavit) (D.Wyo. Nov 13, 2007) United States' Response to Motion for Summary
Judgment of Defendants Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust and Marvin M. Brandt, Trustee
(NO. 06-CV-0184J, 06-CV-171J)
861 Stephen GOLDBERG, Plaintiff, v. Susan WATTS, Defendant., 2002 WL 34486893, *34486893
(Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Fla.Cir.Ct. Aug 06, 2002) Plaintiff's Opposition to
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's State Complaint; and Memorandum of Law (NO. 022142-CA)
862 State of Ohio ex rel., Robert Merrill, Trustee, et al., Plaintiffs-Relators and Named Class
Representatives, Homer S. Taft, et al., Intervening Plaintiffs-Relators, Pro Se, v. State of Ohio,
Department of Natural Resources, et al., Defendants-Respondents and Counterclaimants, National
Wildlife Federation, et al., Intervening Defendants and Counterclaimants., 2004 WL 5530825,
*5530825+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ohio Com.Pl. 2004) Motion of
Defendants-Respondents for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support (NO. 04-CV-001080)
Trial Filings
863 CHRISTOFFERSON, v. NORTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH., 2006 WL 5738747,
*5738747 (Trial Filing) (N.D.Dist. Jun 15, 2006) Constructive and Actual Notice of Rescission of
Signature (NO. 08-06-C-0007)

US Supreme Court Rules Military Fort Land Reserved for Government Use

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

US Supreme Court Rules Military Fort Land Reserved for Government Use

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Page 1

38 U.S. 498, 13 Pet. 498, 1839 WL 4329 (U.S.Ill.), 10 L.Ed. 264

2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

After the writing and receipt of the letters aforesaid, to

2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Land Office, Chicago, Illinois.

I, James Whitlock, register of the land office at Chicago,

2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

Date of Printing: Aug 07, 2010

Negative Citing References (U.S.A.)

2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

Date of Printing: Aug 07, 2010

2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

Date of Printing: Aug 07, 2010

Positive Cases (U.S.A.)

2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

Administrative Decisions (U.S.A.)

Interior Board of Land Appeals Decisions

U.S. Attorney General Opinions

State Administrative Materials (U.S.A.)

2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

Other Administrative Materials (U.S.A.)

2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

Lands Decisions 102 (1927)

2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

672 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 3 Public Lands Decisions 327 (1885)

Secondary Sources (U.S.A.)

2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.