United States v. Central Pac. Ry. Co.
District Court, N.D. California
1Opinion of the Court
BOURQUIN, District Judge.
A press of causes and brevity of time forbid detailed comment, and is no reason why busy trial courts should decide other than as juries and their brief verdicts. Accordingly, the court finds for defendant.
Briefly, in the early 60’s the land involved was by plaintiff granted to defendant if not mineral in character. It was an odd section within the place limits of the grant. For nigh 75 years the land has boon subjected to the investigations of prospector-miners, and no gold or other valuable minerals discovered. So clear is this that plaintiff’s counsel admitted the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Germania Iron Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- United States v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.District Court, D. Montana · 1924
- Filcher v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1925
- United States v. DoughertyDistrict Court, D. Montana · 1921
3Cited by1 opinion
- Southern Pac. R. Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1931