Seymour v. Slide & Spur Gold Mines

153 U.S. 523, 14 S. Ct. 847, 38 L. Ed. 807, 1894 U.S. LEXIS 2200
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMay 14, 1894
Docket263
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 153 U.S. 523 (Seymour v. Slide & Spur Gold Mines) 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
Seymour v. Slide & Spur Gold Mines, 153 U.S. 523, 14 S. Ct. 847, 38 L. Ed. 807, 1894 U.S. LEXIS 2200 (1894).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Brewer,

after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

The pleadings put in issue all questions of fact. Outside of the pleadings the only matter before the jury was a deposition of the defendant, taken in a prior litigation between the same parties. In that deposition he admitted that he had been in possession of the property as a managing director; that he at no time denied the right of the company to the possession of the property, and that his term as managing, director had expired. There was nothing in the deposition to qualify this admission. There was, therefore, no impropriety in the court’s directing a verdict for the plaintiff. Jackson v. Dennison, 4 *525 Wend. 558. One who holds possession of real estate as manager for or under another cannot dispute that other’s title. Johnson v. Baytup, 3 Ad. & El. 188; Phelan v. Kelley, 25 Wend. 389, 393. The estoppel is like to that which arises iu the case of landlord and tenant, and comes within the scope of the general rule that an agent in possession cannot deny the title of his principal.

Neither is it necessary to inquire into the right of the plaintiff as a foreign corporation to take and hold title to real estate in Colorado, a question which, in some of its aspects,, was before this court in the case of Fritts v. Palmer, 132 U. S. 282; for if, by so doing, any laws of the State are violated, the State is the one to challenge the act, (Devlin on Deeds, § 127, and cases cited in note,) and it does not lie in the mouth of the agent of the corporation to raise the question.

The judgment is, therefore,

Affirmed.

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

Related

Synanon Foundation, Inc. v. Bernstein
503 A.2d 1254 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1986)
Gold Issue Mining & Milling Co. v. Pennsylvania Fire Insurance
184 S.W. 999 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1916)
Farnsworth v. . Boro Oil Gas Co.
109 N.E. 860 (New York Court of Appeals, 1915)
Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. . Stephens
108 N.E. 856 (New York Court of Appeals, 1915)
Semidey v. Central Aguirre
7 P.R. Fed. 572 (D. Puerto Rico, 1915)
Nebraska Power Co. v. Koenig
139 N.W. 839 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1913)
Consolidated Plaster Co. v. Wild
42 Colo. 202 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1908)
Louisville Property Co. v. Mayor of Nashville
114 Tenn. 213 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1904)
Weaver v. Spurr
48 S.E. 852 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1904)
Sanders v. Thornton
97 F. 863 (Eighth Circuit, 1899)
American Building & Loan Ass'n v. Rainbolt
67 N.W. 493 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1896)
Chattanooga, R. & C. R. v. Evans
66 F. 809 (Sixth Circuit, 1895)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
153 U.S. 523, 14 S. Ct. 847, 38 L. Ed. 807, 1894 U.S. LEXIS 2200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seymour-v-slide-spur-gold-mines-scotus-1894.