Union Pacific Railroad v. Heger
Citations
- 110 Kan. 368
- 204 P. 1008
- 1922 Kan. LEXIS 54
Syllabus
<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Public Lands — Homestead Settlements — Railroad Grant ¡or Right of Way —U. S. Statutes — Change of Route — Width of Right of Way. Under the act of congress of July 2, 1864, amending that of .July 1, 1862, and permitting a change of route so that a road at first authorized to be built through Kansas into Nebraska might at the election of the railroad company be built into Colorado, the 400-foot right of way provided for in the first act attached to the road when constructed along the new route, even as against claimants whose title originated in settlements under the homestead and preemption laws after the passage of the second act, although before the construction of the road and before the filing of any map showing the new route; and this rule is not affected by the fact that after the passage of the second act and before the settlements in question the railroad company had filed a map showing its general route along the line first authorized.</p> <p>2. Same — Public Highway on Railroad Right of Way — Width of Railroad Right of Way Not Affected Thereby. Where a railway company has by act of congress a 400-foot right of Way, the laying out of a parallel highway inside of its boundaries does not extinguish the company’s right to the strip lying across the highway from the track.</p> <p>3. Same — Judicial Sale of Railroad Property — Rights of Purchaser. A railway company which purchases at judicial sale the property of another, including a 400-foot right of way granted by congress, takes such right of way subject to the same disability as its predecessor to alienate any part of it, notwithstanding the United States was a party, and the decree contained a clause cutting off its interests in the property conveyed.</p> <p>4. Same — Adverse Possession — Statute oj Limitations. Although the federal statute of April 28, 1904, validating conveyances of portions of a railroad right of way granted by congress has been held to cover the parti
Judges: Mason
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
1 case in this archive cites this case.
Cites
10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Union Pacific Railroad v. Laramie Stock Yards Co.Supreme Court· 1913-12-01· cited 279×
- Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. ElySupreme Court· 1905-02-20· cited 63×
- Union Pacific Railroad v. HarrisSupreme Court· 1910-01-03· cited 27×
- Union Pacific Railroad v. SnowSupreme Court· 1913-12-01· cited 26×
- Stuart v. Union Pacific RailroadSupreme Court· 1913-02-24· cited 25×
- Nadeau v. Union Pacific RailroadSupreme Court· 1920-06-07· cited 23×
- Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. ConcannonSupreme Court· 1915-12-20· cited 13×
- Union Pacific Railroad v. DavenportSupreme Court of Kansas· 1918-02-09· cited 8×
- Union Pacific Railroad v. ThedenSupreme Court of Kansas· 1919-02-08· cited 4×
- The PonceSecond Circuit· 1910-03-07· 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.