TELFENER
v.
RUSS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In Telfener v. Russ, the Supreme Court held that the State of Texas cannot be compelled to accept office surveys created merely by copying field-notes from previous surveys, and that such surveys are insufficient to enforce executory contracts for the sale of public lands under the applicable federal statute. The Court affirmed that actual ground surveys are required and clarified that a purchaser must demonstrate compliance with statutory requirements to obtain a vested right to patents before being entitled to enforce such land sale contracts.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mb. Justice Field delivered the opinion of the court.
It is firmly established that the State of Texas cannot, in opposition to its wishes, be compelled to accept an office survey constructed by merely copying and adopting the field-notes of a previous survey made on the ground for other parties by other surveyors, and that such office surveys are not sufficient to enable a purchaser to enforce an executory contract for the sale of public lands under the act of J uly 14,. 1879, as amended March 11, 1881. Bacon v. Texas, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 692, and cases cited.
We adhere to the ruling that error was committed by the Circuit Court in the manner in which this matter of the necessity of surveys on the ground was left to the jury. We also intimated that it seemed from the evidence, so far as before us, that the surveys in this instance were not in fact made on the ground, but that was not essential to the decision.
Some expressions in our former opinion implying that payment was a prerequisite to recovery are complained of. What we intended to say was that under the pleadings, and on plaintiff’s contention as it seemed to be pressed, it was necessary that he should show that he had so far complied with the law as to have obtained a vested right to patents as against the State on making the required payments in the required time, and this we thought he had failed to do as to all the tracts, it being borne in mind that each tract must be treated as a separate purchase under the statute, as held in Bacon v. Texas, supra, though this contract, as between the parties, was an entire contract for the transfer of rights in the many tracts necessary to make up the agreed number of acres.
Petition denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baines v. City OF Danville, 357 F.2d 756 (4th Cir. 1966)…nses cognizable in the courts of the states. . Com. of Kentucky v. Powers, 201 U.S. 1, 26 S.Ct. 387, 50 L.Ed. 633; Williams v. State of Mississipi, 170 U.S. 213, 18 S.Ct. 583, 42 L.Ed. 1012; Murray v. State of Louisiana, 163 U.S. 101, 16 S.Ct. 990, 41 L.Ed. 87; Smith v. State of Mississippi, 162 U.S. 592, 16 S.Ct. 900, 40 L.Ed. 1082; Gibson v. State of Mississippi, 162 U.S. 565, 16 S.Ct. 904, 40 L.Ed. 1075; Bush v. Com. of Kentucky, 107 U.S. 110, 1 S.Ct. 625, 27 L.Ed. 354; Neal v. State of Delaware, 103 U…
-
Reverend John M. Perkins v. State OF Miss., 455 F.2d 7 (5th Cir. 1972)…ky, 1883, 107 U.S. 110, 1 S.Ct. 625, 27 L.Ed. 354; Gibson v. Mississippi, 1896, 162 U.S. 565, 16 S.Ct. 904, 40 L.Ed. 1075; Smith v. Mississippi, 1896, 162 U.S. 592, 16 S. Ct. 900, 40 L.Ed. 1082; Murray v. Louisiana, 1896, 163 U.S. 101, 16 S.Ct. 990, 41 L.Ed. 87; Williams v. Mississippi, 1898, 170 U.S. 213, 18 S.Ct. 583, 42 L.Ed. 1012. . Title II of the Act, § 201(a), provides a right to “the full and equal enjoyment * * * of any place of public accommodation * * * without discrimination or segregation on…
-
Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader, 102 F.2d 702 (3d Cir. 1939)…Co. [*703] (C.C.A.) 156 F. 765; for leave to make physical examination of a plaintiff, Union Pacific Ry. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 11 S.Ct. 1000, 35 L.Ed. 734; or for a subpoena duces tecum, Murray v. Louisiana, 163 U.S. 101, 107, 16 S.Ct. 990, 41 L.Ed. 87; American Lithographic Co. v. Werclcmeister, 221 U.S. 603, 608-610, 31 S.Ct. 676, 55 L.Ed. 873. The orders made upon such applications, so far as they affect the rights only of parties to the litigation, are interlocutory. Compare Alexander v. Unit…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Telfener v. Russ, 162 U.S. 170 (U.S. 1896)