Smith v. Adams
Supreme Court of the United States
APPEAL PROM THE SUPREME COURT OP THE TERRITORY OP DAKOTA. Motions to dismiss or affirm. The-case, as stated by the court in its opinion, was as follows The facts disclosed by the record are briefly as follows: The Political Code of Dakota, in force in .1886, in providing for the organization of counties and the location of their county seats, authorizes the Governor of the Territory, upon proper application of the voters of any unorganized eounty, .to take .measures for its…
Read the full summary
APPEAL PROM THE SUPREME COURT OP THE TERRITORY OP DAKOTA. Motions to dismiss or affirm. The-case, as stated by the court in its opinion, was as follows The facts disclosed by the record are briefly as follows: The Political Code of Dakota, in force in .1886, in providing for the organization of counties and the location of their county seats, authorizes the Governor of the Territory, upon proper application of the voters of any unorganized eounty, .to take .measures for its organization, and for that purpose to appoint commissioners to locate the county seat temporarily, and to appoint…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Field
The designation of the county seat of a county in Dakota, or providing for its designation ■ by popular election, whs a matter properly belonging to the legislative department of the territorial government. It was not á matter by itself for judicial cognizance. But when the law of the Territory left the designation of a county seat to the voters of the county, and provided that the validity of the election could be contested by any competent elector of the county before the District Court of the district within which the county was situated, upon leave obtained-from such court for that…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Osborn v. Bank of United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
- Holland v. ChallenSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Smith v. WhitneySupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Stark v. StarrsSupreme Court of the United States · 1868
- Peirsoll v. ElliottSupreme Court of the United States · 1832
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by144 opinions
- Healy v. RattaSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Madisonville Traction Company v. Saint Bernard Mining CompanySupreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Tutun v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Wells Fargo & Co. v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
- Rogers v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 1933
139 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.