Hoy v. Lane

D.C. Circuit

Hoy v. Lane

266 F. 1008, 49 App. D.C. 388, 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 2020

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedDecember 1, 1919

DocketNo. 3294

StatusPublished

This text of 266 F. 1008 (Hoy v. Lane) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hoy v. Lane, 266 F. 1008, 49 App. D.C. 388, 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 2020 (D.C. Cir. 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

SMYTH, Chief Justice.

Appellant asked for an injunction to restrain the Secretary of the Interior from canceling his entry of certain public lands and to compel him to accept for the lands the soldier’s additional right, given by section 2306, Revised Statutes (Comp. St. § 4594). This right belonged to one Sylvester Ramey, a soldier, was not exercised or disposed of by him in his lifetime, and is claimed by the appellant through an assignment from a residuary legatee under the will of Ramey. The injunction was denied.

The question presented is the same as that this day decided in U. S. ex rel. Wattis v. Lane, 49 App. D. C. 385, 266 Fed. 1005, namely, whether the Secretary of the Interior, in holding that a soldier’s right to enter additional land under section 2306 could not be disposed of by the latter through a will, acted arbitrarily or within the discretion lodged in him by the statute. The ruling in the Wattis Case must control here. Consequently the decree is affirmed, at appellant’s cost.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SMYTH, Chief Justice.

Appellant asked for an injunction to restrain the Secretary of the Interior from canceling his entry of certain public lands and to compel him to accept for the lands the soldier’s additional right, given by section 2306, Revised Statutes (Comp. St. § 4594). This right belonged to one Sylvester Ramey, a soldier, was not exercised or disposed of by him in his lifetime, and is claimed by the appellant through an assignment from a residuary legatee under the will of Ramey. The injunction was denied.

The question presented is the same as that this day decided in U. S. ex rel. Wattis v. Lane, 49 App. D. C. 385, 266 Fed. 1005, namely, whether the Secretary of the Interior, in holding that a soldier’s right to enter additional land under section 2306 could not be disposed of by the latter through a will, acted arbitrarily or within the discretion lodged in him by the statute. The ruling in the Wattis Case must control here. Consequently the decree is affirmed, at appellant’s cost.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 F. 1008, 49 App. D.C. 388, 1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 2020, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoy-v-lane-cadc-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack