St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co. v. Donohue
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtJustice White
Jerry Hickey, having the legal qualifications, in March, 1893, settled upon unsurveyed public land of the United States, situated in the Duluth land district, Minnesota» The land was within the territory in which plaintiff in error, hereafter called the railway company, was entitled to make indemnity selections. This right, however, was limited to land as to which, at the time, “no right or claim had attached or been initiated” in favor of another. Act of August 5,1892, c. 3S2,27 Stat. 390. In the land office of the district aforesaid, two years and eight months after the settlement by…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Hastings & Dakota Railroad v. WhitneySupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Quinby v. ConlanSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Whitney v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Tarpey v. MadsenSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Maddox v. BurnhamSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- The Princess SophiaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1932
- Wadkins v. Producers Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1913
- Gilmore v. JamesDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · 1968
- Osborn v. FroysethSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
- Bank of Union v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1933
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.