Nelson v. Mather
Supreme Court of Kansas
Frror from Wyandotte County. The facts of the case sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. 1. To maintain the action plaintiff must show not only possession, but a lawful and legal one. 1 Gow., 546. 2. The plaintiff below did not show this.
Read the full summary
Frror from Wyandotte County. The facts of the case sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. 1. To maintain the action plaintiff must show not only possession, but a lawful and legal one. 1 Gow., 546. 2. The plaintiff below did not show this. His chain of title was defective in this, that his deed was never approved by the Secretary of the Interior, as required by treaty with Wyandottes, January 31, 1855, article 4. See 1 Wheat, 257, 258. 3. Trespass is but a possessory action. Graham v. Peal, 1 Fast, 244; Harher v. Kirby, Burr, 1563; Carey v. Holt, 2 S'trat., 1238 and notes “B” “F”…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Valentine, J.
This action was commenced originally in the court below by said Samuel P. Mather, as plaintiff, against the said plaintiffs in error, who were defendants in the court below, to recover damages for cutting down and carrying away timber from a certain piece of land.
The case was -tried before a referee, who found in favor of the plaintiff below as follows: Said land was
originally a part of the Wyandotte reserve. The Hnited States under article 4, of the treaty with the Wyandottes, of January 31, 1855, issued a patent for said land to one Susan Hicks, an incompetent…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Hefley v. BakerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1877
- Akin v. DavisSupreme Court of Kansas · 1873
- Rosa v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1877
- Hall v. Pioneer Crop Care, Inc.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1973
- Higdon v. KennemerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1895
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.