City and County of San Francisco v. Scott
Supreme Court of the United States
IN ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. The facts are stated by the court in its opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Waite
There is no federal question in this case. The right of San Francisco under the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo to the lands' in dispute as pueblo lands is not denied. Precisely what that right was may not be easy to state. Mr.- Justice Field, speaking for the court, said, in Townsend v. Greely, 5 Wall. 336, “ It was not an indefeasible estate; ownership of the lands in the pueblos could not in strictness be affirmed. It amounted in
truth to little more than- a restricted and qualified right to alienate portions of the land-to its inhabitants for building or cultivation, and to use the remainder…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Grisar v. McDowellSupreme Court of the United States · 1868
- Townsend v. GreeleySupreme Court of the United States · 1867
- Delmas v. Insurance Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Hoadley v. San FranciscoSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Palmer v. LowSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Devine v. Los AngelesSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
- Hooker v. Los AngelesSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
- Chicago & Alton R. Co. v. Wiggins Ferry Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Chicago & Alton Railroad v. Wiggins Ferry Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Los Angeles Farming & Milling Co. v. City of Los AngelesSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.