Hamilton v. Spokane & Palouse Railroad
Idaho Supreme Court
APPEAL from District Court, Latah County. Under the practice of express findings, nothing is implied, but full findings are required without any request tberefor. (Hayue on New Trial and Appeal, p. 718, sec. 239.) When a route is adopted by the company, and a map is filed with the Secretary of the Interior, and accepted by that officer, the route is then "established.”
Read the full summary
APPEAL from District Court, Latah County. Under the practice of express findings, nothing is implied, but full findings are required without any request tberefor. (Hayue on New Trial and Appeal, p. 718, sec. 239.) When a route is adopted by the company, and a map is filed with the Secretary of the Interior, and accepted by that officer, the route is then "established.” It is, in the language of the act, "definitely fixed,” and cannot be the subject of future change, so as to affect the grant, except upon legislative consent. (Van Wyck v. Knevals, 106 H. S. 366, 1 Sup. Ct. Eep. 336.) Whoever…
1Opinion of the CourtSullivan, C. J.
This is an action brought by the respondent (plaintiff below) against the appellant (defendant below, and three other defendants, who are not appellants here) to recover $250, damages alleged to have been sustained by reason of appellant having graded a railway roadbed through land claimed by the respondent, and for hauling and piling dirt upon said land. The complaint alleges that the defendant is a railroad corporation; that the plaintiff, on the third day of September, 1890, was, and ever since has been, the owner of a piece or parcel of land, being a part of lot 4, section 7, township 39…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Wilcox v. JacksonSupreme Court of the United States · 1839
- Leavenworth, Lawrence, & Galveston Railroad v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Hastings & Dakota Railroad v. WhitneySupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Kansas Pacific Railway Co. v. DunmeyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Railroad Co. v. BaldwinSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Great Northern Railway Co. v. SteinkeSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Stewart Mining Co. v. Ontario Mining Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1913
- Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. v. DoughtySupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Capital Water Co. v. Public Utilities CommissionIdaho Supreme Court · 1926
- Porter v. Title Guaranty & Surety Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1912
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.