KING
v.
PANTHER LUMBER COMPANY
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.
King, a New York citizen, sued in equity to enjoin Panther Lumber Company, a West Virginia corporation, from cutting timber on land in West Virginia that King claimed to own, but the company denied his ownership and asserted its own title. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the suit, holding that King's failure to enter the disputed land on West Virginia's tax books from 1883 to 1895 operated to forfeit his title to the state under the West Virginia Constitution, thereby divesting him of any ownership interest to protect.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Harlan delivered the opinion of the court.
This was a suit in equity by the appellant, a citizen of New York, against the appellee, a corporation of West Virginia, and one Kroll, a citizen of the latter State. Its object was to obtain a decree enjoining the defendant from cutting and removing timber from a certain tract of land in West Virginia, of which the plaintiff King claimed to be the owner. The defendant corporation denied the plaintiff’s ownership of the land, and asserted title in itself. The land in dispute is a part of a tract purporting to contain 500,000 acres, and which was patented in 1793 by the Commonwealth of Virginia to Robert Morris, assignee of Wilson Cary Nicholas. It is the same patent which is referred to in the opinion in King v. Mullins, just decided, ante, 404.
It appeared from the pleadings and exhibits in the cause that the lands in controversy were not entered upon the proper land books for taxation or charged with taxes for any year from 1883 to 1895, inclusive.
The final order in the cause was in-these words: “ It having been held by this court in the Case of H. C. King v. M. B. Mullins et als., recently tried in this court, the honorable Circuit Judge presiding, that such omission of said land from the land books operated to forfeit and divest the title to said tract of land and vest the same absolutely in the State of West Virginia, under the provisions of the constitution of said State, before the purchase of the same by complainant, and that therefore complainant has no title to said land, the court is of the opinion to dissolve said injunction, reserving the right to render and file herein an opinion in writing upon said motion. It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the said injunction be, and the same is hereby, dissolved, and that the said bills be dismissed, and that the defendants recover of the complainant their costs.”
The controlling questions in this case are the same as those decided in the case of King v. Mullins, ante, 404. For the reasons therein given, the judgment of the Circuit Court is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
King v. State of W. Va. & Spruce Coal & Lumber Co., 216 U.S. 92 (U.S. 1910)…details are stated in King v. Mullins, 171 U. S. 404, where the validity of the system [*94] created by the constitution and statute referred to was considered and maintained in a suit concerning this same tract. See also King v. Panther Lumber Co., 171 U. S. 437. Swann v. West Virginia, 188 U. S. 739. These provisions being in the interest of actual.settlement in the country, the Constitution also provides that all titles of the State to forfeited lands, &c., not redeemed or redeemable, shall be vested in…
-
FAY v. Crozer, 217 U.S. 455 (U.S. 1910)…be substantial and the question open to discussion.. Tested by that rule, we think the writ of error must be dismissed on the authority of King v. Mullins, 171 U. S. 404; King v. West Virginia, 216 U. S. 92. And see King v. Panther Lumber Company, 171 U. S. 437; Swann v. State, 188 U. S. 739, It is contended' that the question of the forfeiture of plaintiffs’ title under the constitution of West Virginia was hot ruled in those, cases, because- théy also involved the statute .of the State, referred to, whil…
-
Jones v. Buffalo Creek Coal & Coke Co., 245 U.S. 328 (U.S. 1917)…vidence or .entering judgment after full hearing does-not constitute a denial of due process of law. Central Land Co. v. Laidley, 159 U. S. 103, 112. The writ of- error must be Dismissed. King v. Mullins, 171 U. S. 404; King v. Panther Lumber Co., 171 U. S. 437; Swann v. Treasurer of West Virginia, 188 U. S. 739; King v. West Virginia, 216 U. S. 92; Fay v. Crozer, 217 U. S. 455; King v. Buskirk, 231 U. S. 735.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence