Le Fevre v. Amonson
Citations
- 11 Idaho 45
- 81 P. 71
- 1905 Ida. LEXIS 34
Syllabus
<p>Public Lands — Contest of Title — Mining Claim — Squatters—Land Department — Jurisdiction of State Courts.</p> <p>1. The state courts have no jurisdiction to determine the character of public lands as to whether it is mineral or not while the claims of respective parties are pending before the land department of the general government.</p> <p>2. When the jurisdiction of the land department is once set in motion, and that tribunal is engaged in an investigation to determine the character of the land, the courts are precluded from trying or determining that question.</p> <p>3. The decision of the land department on that question is conclusive on the courts.</p> <p>4. Mere occupancy of public lands by a settler gives him > vested right therein as against the United States, and consequently no right against any purchaser from them.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the court.)</p>
Judges: Ailshie, Stockslager, Sullivan
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
3 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Marquez v. FrisbieSupreme Court· 1879-12-18· cited 160×
- SPARKS & Another v. PIERCE & OthersSupreme Court· 1885-11-16· cited 57×
- Planing-Machine Co. v. KeithSupreme Court· 1880-03-22· cited 39×
- Astiazaran v. Santa Rita Land & Mining Co.Supreme Court· 1893-03-06· cited 37×
- Cosmos Exploration Co. v. Gray Eagle Oil Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern California· 1900-09-24· cited 15×
- Humbird v. AveryU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota· 1901-08-29· cited 4×
- Savage v. WorshamU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern California· 1892-04-04· cited 2×
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.