Cornelius v. Kessel
Citations
- 128 U.S. 456
- 9 S. Ct. 122
- 32 L. Ed. 482
- 1888 U.S. LEXIS 2237
Syllabus
<p>In. Wisconsin an equitable defence may be set up in an action at law; but it must b<j separately stated, in order that it may be considered on its distinctive merits, and in order that, if established, the appropriate relief may be administered.</p> <p>Wliftn, under the practice prevailing in a State, an equitable defence is set up in an action for the possession of land, the grounds.set forth mqst be sufficient to entitle the defendant to a decree that the property be transferred from the plaintiff to him, or that the plaintiff be enjoined from prosecuting the action for the possession of the property.</p> <p>When an entry .is made of two or more tracts, one of which is not at the disposal of the United States by reason of being within a swamp-land grant to a State, the validity of the entry of the remainder is not affected thereby.</p> <p>When an entry is made upon public land subject to entry, and the purchase ■ money for it is paid, the United States then holds the legal title for the benefit of the purchaser, and is bound, on proper application, to issue to him a patent therefor; and if they afterwards convey that title to another, the purchaser, with notice, takes subject to the equitable claim of the first purchaser, who can compel its transfer to him.</p> <p>The power of supervision possessed by the Commissioner of the General Land Office over the acts of the register and receiver of the local land offices is not unlimited or arbitrary, but can.only be exerted when an entry is made upon false testimony, or without authority of law; and cannot be exercised so as to deprive a person of land lawfully entered and paid for.</p> <p>When the Commissioner of the General Land Office, without authority of law, makes an order for the cancellation of an entry of public land made in accordance with law, and accompanied by the payment of the purchase money, the person making the entry and those claiming under him ’ can stand upon it, and are not obliged to invoke the s
Judges: Field
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
76 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co.Supreme Court· 1906-02-19· cited 1,300×
- Cameron v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1920-04-19· cited 173×
- Michigan Land & Lumber Co. v. RustSupreme Court· 1897-12-18· cited 104×
- Brown v. HitchcockSupreme Court· 1899-04-03· cited 85×
- Payne v. Central Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court· 1921-02-28· cited 81×
- Orchard v. AlexanderSupreme Court· 1895-04-01· cited 76×
- Wyoming v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1921-03-28· cited 76×
- Hawley v. DillerSupreme Court· 1900-05-21· cited 74×
- James v. Germania Iron Co.Eighth Circuit· 1901-03-28· cited 69×
- Black v. JacksonSupreme Court· 1900-04-09· cited 68×
- Ballinger v. United States Ex Rel. FrostSupreme Court· 1910-02-21· cited 61×
- Weyerhaeuser v. HoytSupreme Court· 1911-02-20· cited 54×
- Adams v. WitmerNinth Circuit· 1958-12-10· cited 47×
- Alonzo A. Adams v. United StatesNinth Circuit· 1963-06-10· cited 43×
- Cosmos Exploration Co. v. Gray Eagle Oil Co.Ninth Circuit· 1901-11-15· cited 43×
- Pierce v. FraceWashington Supreme Court· 1891-02-11· cited 42×
- Peyton v. DesmondEighth Circuit· 1904-02-15· cited 41×
- United States v. O'DONNELLSupreme Court· 1938-03-28· cited 36×
- Knapp v. Alexander-Edgar Lumber Co.Supreme Court· 1915-04-05· cited 29×
- Charles Schraier v. Walter J. Hickel, Secretary of the InteriorD.C. Circuit· 1969-07-22· cited 28×
Cites
1 case in this archive is cited by this case.
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.