Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Hasse

Supreme Court

Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Hasse

197 U.S. 9, 25 S. Ct. 305, 49 L. Ed. 642, 1905 U.S. LEXIS 1231

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedFebruary 20, 1905

Docket118

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 197 U.S. 9 (Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Hasse) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Hasse, 197 U.S. 9, 25 S. Ct. 305, 49 L. Ed. 642, 1905 U.S. LEXIS 1231 (1905).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Fuller

delivered the opinion of the court.-

This was an action of ejectment brought by the Norther; Pacific Railway. Company in the Superior Court of Kittjtai *10 County, Washington, to recover possession of part of its right of way, the land being partly within and partly without a right of way of two hundred feet in width. Defendants asserted title by virtue of a homestead application, filed May 24, 1883, final proof July 12,1888, and patent September 27,1889;- and adverse possession for the period named in the statute of limitations. Judgment was entered in favor of the. railway company, and 'defendants carried the case by appeal to the Supreme Court of Washington, which held the statute of limitations applicable, reversed the judgment below and remanded the case with directions to dismiss the action. 28 Washington, 353.

The grant of right of way, unlike the land grant, was effective from the date of the act, and the fact that the railroad was not built until after defendants’ entry does not affect the disposition of the case. Railroad Company v. Baldwin, 103 U. S. 426; Bybee v. Oregon & California Railroad Company, 139 U. S. 663, 679. .

The judgment must be reversed‘on the authority of Northern Pacific Railway Company, v. Townsend, 190 U. S. 267, and remanded for further proceedings hot inconsistent with the opinion of this court in Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Ely, ante, p. 1.

Judgment reversed.

Mr. Justice Harlan dissented.

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

Mr. Chief Justice Fuller

delivered the opinion of the court.-

This was an action of ejectment brought by the Norther; Pacific Railway. Company in the Superior Court of Kittjtai *10 County, Washington, to recover possession of part of its right of way, the land being partly within and partly without a right of way of two hundred feet in width. Defendants asserted title by virtue of a homestead application, filed May 24, 1883, final proof July 12,1888, and patent September 27,1889;- and adverse possession for the period named in the statute of limitations. Judgment was entered in favor of the. railway company, and 'defendants carried the case by appeal to the Supreme Court of Washington, which held the statute of limitations applicable, reversed the judgment below and remanded the case with directions to dismiss the action. 28 Washington, 353.

The grant of right of way, unlike the land grant, was effective from the date of the act, and the fact that the railroad was not built until after defendants’ entry does not affect the disposition of the case. Railroad Company v. Baldwin, 103 U. S. 426; Bybee v. Oregon & California Railroad Company, 139 U. S. 663, 679. .

The judgment must be reversed‘on the authority of Northern Pacific Railway Company, v. Townsend, 190 U. S. 267, and remanded for further proceedings hot inconsistent with the opinion of this court in Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Ely, ante, p. 1.

Judgment reversed.

Mr. Justice Harlan dissented.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 U.S. 9, 25 S. Ct. 305, 49 L. Ed. 642, 1905 U.S. LEXIS 1231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/northern-pacific-railway-co-v-hasse-scotus-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack