Skip to main content
· 11/1/1915

Alaska Northern Ry. Co. v. Alaska Cent. Ry. Co.

Citations

  • 5 Alaska 377

Syllabus

<p>1. Teusxs <&wkey;365(2)—Equity—Laches.</p> <p>In this case nearly ten years elapsed before the claim was made that the land was not the rightful property of the Bailables, and no reason or excuse whatever is offered why- the claim was not sooner made. No diligence whatever is shown or any effort made to ascertain the facts, until by reason of the government of the United States taking over said railway property, the town site of Seward acquired a speculative value which it had not had before. Helé, the plaintiff is barred by laches.</p> <p>2. Railroads t&wkey;61—Capacity to Hold Lands—Trusts.</p> <p>In the absence of statutory authority a railroad cannot lawfully take or hold land, other than what it actually requires for depot, terminal, and station grounds, and that a trust in lands similar to the one claimed by plaintiff in this case, although clearly recognized, would not be enforced for that reason.</p> <p>3. Fraud &wkey;>50 —• Evidence — Burden of Proof — Principal and Agent.</p> <p>Fraud will never be presumed, but must be proved by clear and unambiguous evidence; yet this rule is sometimes modified in cases where one holding a fiduciary relation takes advantage of such position to acquire benefits for himself which in equity and good conscience belong to another. In such cases the acts of the agent will be scrutinized closely.</p> <p><®=»See same topic & KBY-NXJMBBR in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • explaining that plaintiff’s “‘waiver-through-statutory construction’ arguments” demonstrated that the statutory language at issue was “at best ambiguous [and thus] not enough to constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity” (citing Lane, 518 U.S. at 195)
  • noting the definition of “hack” as “To modify a program, often in an unauthorized manner, by changing the code itself.”
  • “[T]he general rule is when jurisdiction is explicitly conferred on a designated court, such as here to the ‘district courts,’ such designation bars other courts from entertaining claims under that statute.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Brown

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.