Brigham City v. Toltec Ranch Co.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Utah. . The Toltee Ranch Company, the defendant in error, brought an action of ejectment against Brigham City, the plaintiff in error, to recover the possession of a quarter section of land.
Read the full summary
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Utah. . The Toltee Ranch Company, the defendant in error, brought an action of ejectment against Brigham City, the plaintiff in error, to recover the possession of a quarter section of land. The city answered “that it did not claim or pretend to have, nor does it now claim, any right, title, or interest-of, in, or to the estate and premises described in the complaint,” except the parcel thereof covered by the reservoir, and pipes leading thereto and therefrom, embracing. “in all about ie/100 of an acre,” which was…
1Opinion of the CourtCaldwell, Circuit Judge
There were in the end two distinct suits in the court below, — one, the original action of ejectment brought by the Toltec Ranch Company against Brigham City to recover the possession of 160 acres of land; and the other an action brought by Brigham City, by a cross complaint, against the Toltec Ranch Company, to condemn to the use of the city for a public use 15/ioo of an acre of the 160 acres. *87The suit on the cross complaint filed by Brigham City for the condemnation of the 15/ioo of an acre was proceeded with, and resulted in the condemnation of the 3 5/J <>o of an acre to the use of the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Supervisors v. StanleySupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Cuyler v. MorelandNew York Court of Chancery · 1837
- McGregor v. PearsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1881
- McLinden v. WentworthWisconsin Supreme Court · 1881
3Cited by3 opinions
- Hill v. PhelpsCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1900
- Stehli, Et Vir v. Thompson Thompson v. Stehli, Etc.Supreme Court of Florida · 1942
- Mono County Irrigation Co. v. StateCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1916