Neal v. Kayser
Arizona Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, in and for the County of Mohave. Richard E. Sloan, Judge. •The facts are stated in the opinion. “The right of a settler on the public land must rest upon his personal and actual settlement alone, and neither the ownership of the improvements, nor possession by means of the improvement of the land by an agent, constitute him a bona fide settler.”
Read the full summary
APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, in and for the County of Mohave. Richard E. Sloan, Judge. •The facts are stated in the opinion. “The right of a settler on the public land must rest upon his personal and actual settlement alone, and neither the ownership of the improvements, nor possession by means of the improvement of the land by an agent, constitute him a bona fide settler.” Kelso v. JHickman, 26 L. D. 617; Culver v. M&Millcm, 17 L. D. 501; Esperance v. Ferry, 13 L. D. 142; Willis v. Parker, 8 L. D. 623; Knight v. Haucke, 2 L. D. 188; Howden v.…
1Opinion of the Court
KENT, C. J. —
This is a statutory action, brought by Neal in the district court to determine the right of possession claimed by Neal to a tract of land, being a portion of the unsurveyed public agricultural lands of the United States in Mohave county. The answer contained a general denial, and set up the affirmative defense of right of possession in the defendant, Kayser, by virtue of the occupancy of the land by Kayser and his predecessors in interest for the period of ten years and more. Judgment was entered that the plaintiff take nobbing by his action, .and from this judgment, and the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Thallmann v. ThomasCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1901
- Brown v. KillabrewNevada Supreme Court · 1893
- Tidwell v. Chiricahua Cattle Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1898
- Waring v. LoomisWashington Supreme Court · 1904
3Cited by2 opinions
- Bagg v. New Jersey Loan CompanyArizona Supreme Court · 1960
- In re Neve Drug Stores, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1931