Marks v. Dickson
Supreme Court of the United States
This case was brought up from the Supreme Court of Louisiana, by a writ of error issued under the twenty-fifth section of' the judiciary'act;. ; The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Mr. Benjamin made three points:. I. The policy of Congress has been fixed and invariable, not to allow the beneficent purposes of the pre-emption laws to be defeated, nor its objects perverted to the profit of land speculators.
Read the full summary
This case was brought up from the Supreme Court of Louisiana, by a writ of error issued under the twenty-fifth section of' the judiciary'act;. ; The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Mr. Benjamin made three points:. I. The policy of Congress has been fixed and invariable, not to allow the beneficent purposes of the pre-emption laws to be defeated, nor its objects perverted to the profit of land speculators. Whether wise or unwise, this is the unmistakable policy of the law. ' Under this point, Mr. Benjamin contended, that although the deed from Butler’s attorney was dated after…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Catron
This cause is brought here by a writ of error to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, which, by its judgment, construed the acts of Congress Of 1830,1832, and 1834, securing pre-emption rights to actual settlers on the public lands.
The facts giving rise' to the questions decided are these :• John Butler and Elkin T. Jones resided on the same quarter se'dtion of land, lying in the parish of Claiborne, Louisiana; and having duly proved their residence on the land, as required by the acts of Congress, were allowed to purchase jointly at the proper land.offiee the quarter section on which they resided.
2Cited by2 opinions
- Ableman v. BoothWisconsin Supreme Court · 1859
- Midway Co. v. EatonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1900