Powers v. Slaght

Supreme Court

Powers v. Slaght

180 U.S. 173, 21 S. Ct. 319, 45 L. Ed. 479, 1901 U.S. LEXIS 1294

Supreme Court of the United States·Decided January 7, 1901·No. No. 47·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Mr. Justice Harlan,

after stating the facts as above reported, delivered the opinion'of the court.

The issue as to the validity of the order of withdrawal made by direction of the Secretary of the Interior of lands within the [180] indemnity limits of the Northern Pacific Railroad Company, as indicated by the company’s accepted map of definite location, presents the controlling question in this case. Unless such order be sustained as a valid exercise of power by that officer, there is no ground upon which a decree could be rendered against' Slaght.

For the reasons stated in Hewitt v. Schults, just decided, we Fold, in conformity with the long-established practice in the. Land Department, that that order of withdrawal must be regarded as inconsistent with the true construction of the act of Congress of July 2,1864. The judgment of the Supreme Court of "Washington is, accordingly,"

■Affirmed.

Mr. Justice White concurred in the result. Mr. J ustice Brewer and Mr. Justice Shiras dissented.

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

Mr. Justice Harlan,

after stating the facts as above reported, delivered the opinion'of the court.

The issue as to the validity of the order of withdrawal made by direction of the Secretary of the Interior of lands within the [180] indemnity limits of the Northern Pacific Railroad Company, as indicated by the company’s accepted map of definite location, presents the controlling question in this case. Unless such order be sustained as a valid exercise of power by that officer, there is no ground upon which a decree could be rendered against' Slaght.

For the reasons stated in Hewitt v. Schults, just decided, we Fold, in conformity with the long-established practice in the. Land Department, that that order of withdrawal must be regarded as inconsistent with the true construction of the act of Congress of July 2,1864. The judgment of the Supreme Court of "Washington is, accordingly,"

■Affirmed.

Mr. Justice White concurred in the result. Mr. J ustice Brewer and Mr. Justice Shiras dissented.

Powers v. Slaght, 180 U.S. 173, 21 S. Ct. 319, 45 L. Ed. 479, 1901 U.S. LEXIS 1294 (1901).

Pincite

180 U.S. 173 (Powers v. Slaght) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related