Austin v. Gagan
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California
On Motion to Remand.
1Opinion of the CourtSawyer, J.
One ground of the motion is, that the petition does not present a case, which appears from the facts stated, to arise under the laws of the United States. One party claims the land in dispute as a homestead, and the other that the land is mineral, and therefore, not subject to lie entered as a homestead. But it does not appear from any facts stated, that there is any disputed construction of either statute under which the respective .parties claim. For anything that appears, both parties may agree as to the construction of the statutes, and the whole case turn upon a question of fact, as to…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Gold-Washing and Water Co. v. KeyesSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Gregory v. HartleySupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Pullman Palace Car Co. v. SpeckSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Trafton v. NouguesU.S. Circuit Court for the District of California · 1877
- Burdick v. HaleU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana · 1876
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Harris v. RosenbergerCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1906
- Vadner v. VadnerDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 1918
- Maryland Casualty Co. v. Clintwood Bank, Inc.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1930
- Wilcox & Gibbs Guano Co. v. Phoenix Ins. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of South Carolina · 1894
- Ruby Canyon Gold Min. Co. v. HunterU.S. Circuit Court for the District of South Dakota · 1894
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.