Skip to main content
· 1/15/1895

Yellow River Railroad v. Harris

Citations

  • 35 Fla. 385

Syllabus

<p>TRESPASS — RECEIVER’S RECEIPT AS EVIDENCE OF TITLE — PLAINTIFIT MUST OWN OR POSSESS THE LAND AT THE TIME OF TRESPASS TO MAINT_ TAIN THE ACTION.</p> <p>1. The puprose of the United States government in having the receivers of its public land offices to issue receipts to purchasers; and entrymen of the public lands is, that such receipts shouldi serve as evidence, at least, of the fact that the party to whom it is issued has made entry upon or purchased the land described therein, by the consent of the government through it» proper agents, and that he is entitled, by virtue of such purchase or entry, to the possession and control thereof. As evidence of the fact of purchase or entry of the land embranced therein, and of the party’s right to possess and control the-same, such receipts, as a general rule., are admissible in any suit in which the entryman’s right to the possession of the* land becomes involved as a material issue. Section 9, page 514 of McClellan’s Digest, that was in force at the trial of this causey however, expressly made such receipts evidence in trespass an® all other causes in which the title to the laud was involved,, but provided that, as a prerequisite to their admission, the-party offering them must first make oath in writing that he; has been unable to procure a patent for the land in time for the trial, and should further furnish the evidence or a certificate’ under seal from the general land office showing the reason why the patent had not issued, and that there existed no reason why it should not issue at the proper time.</p> <p>2. There is nothing in the character of receipts for land issued by the receivers of the United States Land Offices that makes-them self-verifying or self-identifying, and where a party-offers such a receipt in evidence for any purpose, the burden, is upon him to show by competent proof that the paper he offers in evidence, as being a receiver’s receipt was in fact issue® and signed by the officer purporting to h

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding a wife's claim for pension benefits was subject to a nonclaim statute identical to South Dakota's provision
  • complaint demonstrated that the claim was barred by time
  • complaint demonstrated that the claim was barred by time
  • complaint demonstrated that the claim was barred by time

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Taylor

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.