Home/D.C. Circuit/Oettinger v. District of Columbia

Oettinger v. District of Columbia

18 App. D.C. 375, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 5071
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedJune 4, 1901
DocketNo. 1016
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 18 App. D.C. 375 (Oettinger v. District of Columbia) 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
Oettinger v. District of Columbia, 18 App. D.C. 375, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 5071 (D.C. Cir. 1901).

Opinion

[Mr. Justice Si-ierard

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This is an appeal from a decree dismissing the bill of Henry Oettinger, filed August 20, 1897, against the District of Columbia to enjoin it from interfering with the complainant in the use of certain property that is claimed by the defendant as a public street; and to remove a cloud upon the title raised by the recbrd of a map including said property in Thirty-seventh street of the City of Washington.

It appears that Lot 291 was conveyed, on January 17, 1889, to complainant and William II. Manogue as tenants in common — ’three-fourths to complainant and one-fourthi to Manogue. On December 4, 1896, Manogue conveyed his interest to complainant.

The plat referred to in the bill was filed for record by Frederick W. Huidekoper who was the owner of the land south of Lot 291. It shows the location of Lot 291 with the proposed extension of Thirty-seventh street and the new street extending west therefrom. It is here copied as shown in the record with the addition of letters designating certain parts that are referred to in the testimony.

[377]*377 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

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

Related

Kalorama Citizens Association v. Suntrust Bank Company
District of Columbia, 2020

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
18 App. D.C. 375, 1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 5071, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oettinger-v-district-of-columbia-cadc-1901.