Legal Opinion

Minnesota Mining Co. v. National Mining Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided January 13, 1863PublishedCited by 8 opinions

Error to the District Court of the Upper Peninsula, for the county of Ontonagon. The case is sufficiently stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Christiancy J.:

This was an action of ejectment, brought by the plaintiffs below (plaintiffs in error) to recover a portion of section sixteen in township fifty north of range thirty-nine west, in the Lake Superior Land District.

The plaintiffs claim under a patent from the United States, issued April 9th, 1852, purporting to convey the lands in question (together with a large • amount of lands on other sections in the same township, not here in controversy). By the evidence in the case, this patent appears to have been issued upon a pre-emption purchase under the act of March 1st, 1847: — 9 U.…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Cooper v. RobertsSupreme Court of the United States · 1856

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Kittel v. JenningsSupreme Court of Florida · 1904
  2. Sweet v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1915
  3. Keith v. HaggartNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1891
  4. Territory v. Choctaw, O. & W. Ry. Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1908
  5. Busch v. DonohueMichigan Supreme Court · 1875

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API