Romie v. Casanova

91 U.S. 379, 23 L. Ed. 374, 1875 U.S. LEXIS 1379
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided January 31, 1876·No. 127·Published·Cited by 15 cases

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Waite

delivered the opinion of the court.

No Federal question is presented by the record in this case. The action was brought to recover the possession of certain lands. Both parties claimed title from the city of San Jose; and the question to be determined was, which of the .two had actually obtained a grant of the particular premises in controversy. The title of the city was not drawn in question. Even if it depended upon'the treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo and the several acts of Congress to ascertain- and settle private land, claims in California, the case would not be different. Both parties admit that title, and their litigation extends only to’ the determination .of the rights which they have severally acquired under it. The writ is dismissed.

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

Romie v. Casanova, 91 U.S. 379, 23 L. Ed. 374, 1875 U.S. LEXIS 1379 (1876).

91 U.S. 379 (Romie v. Casanova) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Chapman & Dewey Land Co. v. Bigelow
206 U.S. 41 (Supreme Court, 1907)
Howard v. Illinois Cent. R.
148 F. 997 (W.D. Tennessee, 1907)
McCune v. Essig
122 F. 588 (Ninth Circuit, 1903)
Joy v. City of St. Louis
122 F. 524 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri, 1903)
Blackburn v. Portland Gold Mining Co.
175 U.S. 571 (Supreme Court, 1900)
King v. Lawson
84 F. 209 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of South Dakota, 1897)
Evans v. Durango Land & Coal Co.
80 F. 433 (Eighth Circuit, 1897)
Kenyon v. Knipe
46 F. 309 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Washington, 1891)
MacE v. Merrill
119 U.S. 581 (Supreme Court, 1887)
California Ex Rel. Hastings v. Jackson
112 U.S. 233 (Supreme Court, 1884)
McFadden v. Robinson
22 F. 10 (U.S. Circuit Court, 1884)
Gay v. Lyons
10 F. Cas. 112 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Louisiana, 1877)
McStay v. Friedman
92 U.S. 723 (Supreme Court, 1876)