Kirwan v. Murphy

Eighth Circuit

Kirwan v. Murphy

109 F. 354, 48 C.C.A. 399, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 4203

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMay 20, 1901

DocketNo. 1,526

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 109 F. 354 (Kirwan v. Murphy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kirwan v. Murphy, 109 F. 354, 48 C.C.A. 399, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 4203 (8th Cir. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

SANBORN, Circuit Judge.

The facts presented by the record upon the final hearing of this case do not differ essentially from those presented on the appeal from the order granting the injunction. Kirwan v. Murphy, 28 C. C. A. 348, 83 Fed. 272, 286, 289; Murphy v. Kirwan (C. C.) 103 Fed. 104. The United States surveyed and platted the land about Cedar- Lake; and then patented the tracts which the complainants now own according to its plats, which showed that these tracts extended to, and were bounded by, the lake. It made no attempt to correct its survey, and gave no warning that it claimed it to be erroneous, until after the complainants nad purchased of its patentees, and had paid full value for the land, on the theory that it extended to, and bordered upon, the lake, and in reliance upon the plats and patents of the government, which disclosed this fact. It is too late now for the United States to correct this survey, and thereby to revoke its grants, after innocent purchasers have bought of its patentees in reliance upon them. Our views upon the questions presented here have been so com[355]*355pletelv expressed in the opinions in Kirwan v. Murphy, 28 C. C. A. 348, 83 Fed. 275, and Murphy v. Kirwan (C. C.) 103 Fed. 104, that another opinion would be but a repetition of the rules and reasoning Hiere set forth. The decree below is accordingly affirmed on the authoritv of those opinions and of Railroad Co. v. Schurmeier, 74 U. S. 272, 286, 289, 19 L. Ed. 74; Hardin v. Jordan, 140 U. S. 371, 380, 11 Sup. Ct. 808, 35 L. Ed. 428; Mitchell v. Smale, 140 U. S. 406, 414, 11 Sup. Ct. 819, 35 L. Ed. 442; Cragin v. Powell, 128 U. S. 691, 696, 697, 699, 9 Sup. Ct. 203, 32 L. Ed. 566; Mclver’s Lessee v. Walker. 9 Cranch, 173-177, 3 L. Ed. 694; St. Paul, S. & T. F. R. Co. v. First Division St. P. & P. R. Co., 26 Minn. 31, 34, 49 N. W. 303; and U. S. v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., 15 C. C. A. 96, 67 Fed. 948, 960-964.

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

SANBORN, Circuit Judge.

The facts presented by the record upon the final hearing of this case do not differ essentially from those presented on the appeal from the order granting the injunction. Kirwan v. Murphy, 28 C. C. A. 348, 83 Fed. 272, 286, 289; Murphy v. Kirwan (C. C.) 103 Fed. 104. The United States surveyed and platted the land about Cedar- Lake; and then patented the tracts which the complainants now own according to its plats, which showed that these tracts extended to, and were bounded by, the lake. It made no attempt to correct its survey, and gave no warning that it claimed it to be erroneous, until after the complainants nad purchased of its patentees, and had paid full value for the land, on the theory that it extended to, and bordered upon, the lake, and in reliance upon the plats and patents of the government, which disclosed this fact. It is too late now for the United States to correct this survey, and thereby to revoke its grants, after innocent purchasers have bought of its patentees in reliance upon them. Our views upon the questions presented here have been so com[355]*355pletelv expressed in the opinions in Kirwan v. Murphy, 28 C. C. A. 348, 83 Fed. 275, and Murphy v. Kirwan (C. C.) 103 Fed. 104, that another opinion would be but a repetition of the rules and reasoning Hiere set forth. The decree below is accordingly affirmed on the authoritv of those opinions and of Railroad Co. v. Schurmeier, 74 U. S. 272, 286, 289, 19 L. Ed. 74; Hardin v. Jordan, 140 U. S. 371, 380, 11 Sup. Ct. 808, 35 L. Ed. 428; Mitchell v. Smale, 140 U. S. 406, 414, 11 Sup. Ct. 819, 35 L. Ed. 442; Cragin v. Powell, 128 U. S. 691, 696, 697, 699, 9 Sup. Ct. 203, 32 L. Ed. 566; Mclver’s Lessee v. Walker. 9 Cranch, 173-177, 3 L. Ed. 694; St. Paul, S. & T. F. R. Co. v. First Division St. P. & P. R. Co., 26 Minn. 31, 34, 49 N. W. 303; and U. S. v. Winona & St. P. R. Co., 15 C. C. A. 96, 67 Fed. 948, 960-964.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 F. 354, 48 C.C.A. 399, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 4203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kirwan-v-murphy-ca8-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack