Winona & St. P. R. R. v. County of Deuel
Supreme Court Of The Territory Of Dakota
Appeal from the District Oom-t of Deuel County. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the Court. Points in Brief: As to the effect of the grant by the territory of Minnesota to the Transit Company, we suppose that beyond the first one hundred and twenty sections, it was only to give it title pari passu, as the lands were earned.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Oom-t of Deuel County. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the Court. Points in Brief: As to the effect of the grant by the territory of Minnesota to the Transit Company, we suppose that beyond the first one hundred and twenty sections, it was only to give it title pari passu, as the lands were earned. That not having title to these lands, Section four of the Act providing for immunity from taxation never became operative ; Fa/rnsxoorbh et al v. Minvn. da P. R. R. Go., 2 Otto, 65 ; Sehxdenberg x\ llcvrrimcw%, 21 Wal., 59 ; C. R. da M. R. R. Co. v. Carroll…
1Opinion of the CourtKidder, J.
—This suit was brought to enjoin the enforcement of taxes against certain lands owned by the plaintiff, and which are part of the land grant made by the United States to the Territory of Minnesota to the Transit Railroad Company, to whose rights the plaintiff claims to have succeeded. The plaintiff claims that these lands are exempt from taxation until it sells or contracts to sell them. This the defendants deny.
The facts on which the decision of this question depends are fully stated in the findings of the Court below, the ease having been tried by the Court without a jury. The correctness…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Hunt v. . HuntNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
- Schulenberg v. HarrimanSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- US Bank v. PLANTERS'BANKSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
- Newhall v. SangerSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Piqua Branch of State Bank of Ohio v. KnoopSupreme Court of the United States · 1854
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Winona & St. P. R. v. City of WatertownSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1890
- Bennett v. NicholsArizona Supreme Court · 1905