Smith v. Sheeley
Supreme Court of the United States
Error to the Circuit Court for the District of Nebraska; the case being thus : In February, 1857, Mitchell being an occupant of part of a lot in the now city of Omaha — a site which at that time was still part of the public lands — gave to Redick a power of a'ttorney to “sell and convey” it.
Read the full summary
Error to the Circuit Court for the District of Nebraska; the case being thus : In February, 1857, Mitchell being an occupant of part of a lot in the now city of Omaha — a site which at that time was still part of the public lands — gave to Redick a power of a'ttorney to “sell and convey” it. The instrument, after this grant of power, went on : “And the-said Eedick is hereby authorized and empowered to eel! and convoy such interest as I have in the said lots of land, and such title as I may havo to'the same, and no other or bettor title. And it is hereby understood, and these presents • are…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Davis
‘ It is insisted, in behalf of the plaintiff'in error, that Redick had no authority to make this deed in Mitchell’s name, because the power under which he acted directed him to convey such title as Mitchell then had, which was only a possessory right. It is true that in February, 1857, when the power of attorney was given, Mitchell had not the legal title to the lot, but as the mayor of Omaha conveyed it to him a short time afterwards, it is a fair presumption that he was, at the date of the execution of the power, one of the class of persons who were entitled to a deed from the mayor under…
2Cited by51 opinions
- Jones v. HabershamSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Fritts v. PalmerSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Davis v. Old Colony RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1881
- McCormick v. Market BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Kerfoot v. Farmers' and Merchants' BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
46 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.