Balsz v. Liebenow
Arizona Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court of the Third Judicial District in and for the County of Maricopa. H. C. Gooding, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Dissent
ROUSE, J.,
dissenting.—I cannot concur in the opinion in this case. Vail filed on the quarter-section of land described in the complaint under the provisions of the Timber Culture Act. After making said .filing he granted to appellants the right to take possession of said land, and they took possession, and improved and fenced a part thereof, and were in possession of a part thereof under said right acquired of Vail at the time this suit was instituted. Appellants at no time made an effort to enter said land in their own right. Liebenow filed a contest against Vail’s entry, and on a trial…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Jackson v. JacksonOregon Supreme Court · 1888
- Whittaker v. PendolaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Kitts v. AustinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Rourke v. McNallyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Haven v. HawsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883