Martin v. Bailey

D.C. Circuit

Martin v. Bailey

208 F.2d 42, 93 U.S. App. D.C. 412

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedNovember 5, 1953

DocketMisc. No. 373

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 208 F.2d 42 (Martin v. Bailey) 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

Martin v. Bailey, 208 F.2d 42, 93 U.S. App. D.C. 412 (D.C. Cir. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On our remand to the District Court in Martin v. Standard Oil Co., 91 U.S.App.D.C. 84, 198 F.2d 523, Judge Bailey made [43]*43the following finding among others; The Southeasterly boundary of said Lots 6, 7 and 8 owned by plaintiff as aforesaid is the high water mark of the Anacostia River (formerly known as the Eastern Branch) of 1794, as determined in United States v. Martin [85 U.S.App.D.C. 382], 177 F.2d 733.” Petitioner says this finding should be amended by striking the words “of 1794”. “2.

The finding means that “as determined in United States v. Martin” petitioner’s unqualified ownership in fee simple extends only to the high water mark of 1794. The finding is therefore correct. Nothing we said in the Standard Oil case, supra, means that the petitioner has, in land beyond the high water mark of 1794, more than the qualified right she was adjudged to have in United States v. Martin. Judge Bailey’s finding does not mean she has less.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.

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

PER CURIAM.

On our remand to the District Court in Martin v. Standard Oil Co., 91 U.S.App.D.C. 84, 198 F.2d 523, Judge Bailey made [43]*43the following finding among others; The Southeasterly boundary of said Lots 6, 7 and 8 owned by plaintiff as aforesaid is the high water mark of the Anacostia River (formerly known as the Eastern Branch) of 1794, as determined in United States v. Martin [85 U.S.App.D.C. 382], 177 F.2d 733.” Petitioner says this finding should be amended by striking the words “of 1794”. “2.

The finding means that “as determined in United States v. Martin” petitioner’s unqualified ownership in fee simple extends only to the high water mark of 1794. The finding is therefore correct. Nothing we said in the Standard Oil case, supra, means that the petitioner has, in land beyond the high water mark of 1794, more than the qualified right she was adjudged to have in United States v. Martin. Judge Bailey’s finding does not mean she has less.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 F.2d 42, 93 U.S. App. D.C. 412, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-bailey-cadc-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack