Thompson v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota

Thompson v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.

83 F. 546, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 3066

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota

DecidedApril 20, 1896

StatusPublished

This text of 83 F. 546 (Thompson v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thompson v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 83 F. 546, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 3066 (circtdmn 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

THOMAS, District Judge.

After such an examination of the question involved, and a careful review of all the authorities cited, and many others, as I have been able to give, I have reached the following conclusion; That the land in question was reserved and withdrawn from the operation of the pre-emption and homestead laws by the secretary of the interior, and that he had legal authority to make such withdrawal, and that no right of complainant ever attached to said land by virtue of his pretended pre-emption claim. I have considered all the other questions involved, and am compelled to hold that the bill must -be dismised. Let a decree be entered dismissing the complainant's bill, at his costs. The decree must be entered as of the date the case was submitted in open court. Let a stay be granted for GO day's from the date of the decree as to all matters of proceeding except the entry of said decree, to enable the complainant to take such action as he may be advised. Tiie complainant duly excepted to this order.

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

THOMAS, District Judge.

After such an examination of the question involved, and a careful review of all the authorities cited, and many others, as I have been able to give, I have reached the following conclusion; That the land in question was reserved and withdrawn from the operation of the pre-emption and homestead laws by the secretary of the interior, and that he had legal authority to make such withdrawal, and that no right of complainant ever attached to said land by virtue of his pretended pre-emption claim. I have considered all the other questions involved, and am compelled to hold that the bill must -be dismised. Let a decree be entered dismissing the complainant's bill, at his costs. The decree must be entered as of the date the case was submitted in open court. Let a stay be granted for GO day's from the date of the decree as to all matters of proceeding except the entry of said decree, to enable the complainant to take such action as he may be advised. Tiie complainant duly excepted to this order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 F. 546, 1896 U.S. App. LEXIS 3066, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-st-paul-m-m-ry-co-circtdmn-1896.