Taylor v. Anderson
Citations
- 197 F. 383
- 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 4817
Syllabus
<p>1. Ejectment (§ 65*) — Complaint—Requisites.</p> <p>Comp. Laws Okl. 1909, § 6122, provides that, in an action to recover real property, it shall he sufficient if defendant states in his petition that he has the legal or equitable estate therein and is entitled to possession thereof, describing the property as required by section 5667, and that defendant unlawfully deprives him of possession; it being unnecessary to state how plaintiff’s estate or ownership is derived. Section 5667 provides that the land shall he described with such certainty as will enable an officer holding an execution to identify it. Ifelcl that, while plaintiff in ejectment must recover on the strength of his own title, and not on the weakness of his adversary’s, it is not necessary for him to suggest in his declaration how his estate or ownership was derived.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Ejectment, Cent. Dig. §§ 165-174; Dec. Dig. § 65.*]</p> <p>2. Courts (§ 299*) — Federal Courts — Jurisdiction—Ejectment.</p> <p>Where plaintiff in ejectment to recover certain lands, not only described the same, but unnecessarily deraigned Ms title through an Indian allotment, and alleged that it was .subject to Act Cong. July 1, 1902, c. 1362, 32 Stat. 641, such allegation did not justify an inference that eon1 struetion of the act of Congress would be necessarily involved in the action ; and hence, on demurrer to the bill, such allegation was insufficient to show federal jurisdiction on that ground.</p> <p>]Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Courts, Cent. Dig. § 841; Dee. Dig. § 299.*</p> <p>Jurisdiction of cases involving federal questions, see notes to Bailey v. Mosher, 11 C. C. A. 308; Montana Ore-Purch. Co. v. Boston & M. C. O. & S. Min. Co., 35 C. C. A. 7; Barnhart v. Switzler, 105 C. C. A. 262.]</p> <p>3. Courts (§ 391*) — Federal _ Courts — Federal Question — United States Supreme Court — Review'.</p> <p>Where ejectment is brought to recover possession of certain Indian land in a proper st
Judges: Campbell
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
3 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Tennessee v. Union & Planters' BankSupreme Court· 1894-03-19· cited 409×
- Shoshone Mining Co. v. RutterSupreme Court· 1900-04-30· cited 175×
- Doolan v. CarrSupreme Court· 1887-11-21· cited 122×
- Northern Pacific Railway Company v. SoderbergSupreme Court· 1902-11-17· cited 105×
- Arkansas v. Kansas & Texas Coal Co.Supreme Court· 1901-12-02· cited 102×
- Joy v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court· 1906-04-02· cited 92×
- Blackburn v. Portland Gold Mining Co.Supreme Court· 1900-01-08· cited 90×
- Boston & Montana Consolidated Copper & Silver Mining Co. v. Montana Ore Purchasing Co.Supreme Court· 1903-02-23· cited 70×
- Cooke v. AverySupreme Court· 1893-01-23· cited 55×
- Spokane Falls & Northern Railway Co. v. ZieglerSupreme Court· 1897-05-10· cited 31×
- Southern Kansas Railway Co. v. BriscoeSupreme Court· 1892-03-28· cited 12×
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.