Hastings v. Nissen
United States Circuit Court
Ejectment by Frank- W. Hastings against P. C. Nissen and Ole Holethe. The case was tried to the court, a jury being waived, on the following agreed statement of facts: “It is agreed that the evidence on the part of the plaintiff to support and maintain the issue herein on his part is as follows, to-wit: Exhibit A, on which it is agreed the patent for the land in controversy issued to John F. Kimmel; Exhibit B, deed from John F. Kimmel to Jacob Shoff.
Read the full summary
Ejectment by Frank- W. Hastings against P. C. Nissen and Ole Holethe. The case was tried to the court, a jury being waived, on the following agreed statement of facts: “It is agreed that the evidence on the part of the plaintiff to support and maintain the issue herein on his part is as follows, to-wit: Exhibit A, on which it is agreed the patent for the land in controversy issued to John F. Kimmel; Exhibit B, deed from John F. Kimmel to Jacob Shoff. It is agreed that same Shoff died intestate, August 24, 1874, and left as lieirs Airs. Jennie S. Vernon, Airs. Henrietta F. AlcAIahon, Alice F.…
1Opinion of the CourtBrewer, J.
The settled law of the supreme court of the United States is that one who takes by simply a quitclaim deed is not a bona fide purchaser without notice. Oliver v. Piatt, 3 How. 410; May v. Le Claire, 11 Wall. 232; Villa v. Rodriguez, 12 Wall. 338; Dickerson v. Colgrove, 100 U. S. 578. While the question presented is one of local law, in which the federal courts follow the settled rule of the supreme court of the state, the supreme court of Nebraska has never directly decided contrary to the *601rule of the United States supremo court. There are in two cases some intimations to the contrary: so…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Dickerson v. ColgroveSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Oliver v. PiattSupreme Court of the United States · 1845
- May v. Le ClaireSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- Villa v. RodriguezSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- Hoyt v. SchuylerNebraska Supreme Court · 1886