Jenkins v. Dillingham

Fifth Circuit

Jenkins v. Dillingham

175 F. 1021, 99 C.C.A. 666, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 4210

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 8, 1910

DocketNo. 1,968

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 175 F. 1021 (Jenkins v. Dillingham) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jenkins v. Dillingham, 175 F. 1021, 99 C.C.A. 666, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 4210 (5th Cir. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We find the decree appealed from correct as to the claim

of Jenkins for 160 acres of land out of the John Fisher survey; but we. find that said Jenkins had a claim for such part of said 160 acres as was actually, occupied, cultivated, and improved by William Felps prior to February 1, 1894, to wit, 10 years prior to the appointment of receivers in the main case (54, Equity); and, counsel for appellee having suggested that said decree might well be amended in that respect, it is ordered that the decree appealed from be reversed, and the cause remanded, with instructions to find "for and set apart to William Jenkins such part of the 160 acres claimed by bim as William Felps had under actual cultivation, improvement, and occupation prior, to February 1, 1894, and decree in favor of Receiver Dillingham for the r«n mainder of said 160 acres.

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

PER CURIAM.

We find the decree appealed from correct as to the claim

of Jenkins for 160 acres of land out of the John Fisher survey; but we. find that said Jenkins had a claim for such part of said 160 acres as was actually, occupied, cultivated, and improved by William Felps prior to February 1, 1894, to wit, 10 years prior to the appointment of receivers in the main case (54, Equity); and, counsel for appellee having suggested that said decree might well be amended in that respect, it is ordered that the decree appealed from be reversed, and the cause remanded, with instructions to find "for and set apart to William Jenkins such part of the 160 acres claimed by bim as William Felps had under actual cultivation, improvement, and occupation prior, to February 1, 1894, and decree in favor of Receiver Dillingham for the r«n mainder of said 160 acres.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 F. 1021, 99 C.C.A. 666, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 4210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jenkins-v-dillingham-ca5-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack