JOHN S. SWANN ET AL., TRUSTEES, ETC., PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,

v.

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

Citator

Cited By

• King v. State of W. Va. & Spruce Coal & Lumber Co., 216 U.S. 92 (U.S. 1910)
  …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 any person, other than the one in defau…
• FAY v. Crozer, 217 U.S. 455 (U.S. 1910)
  …n 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, while this case ' presents the vali…
• Jones v. Buffalo Creek Coal & Coke Co., 245 U.S. 328 (U.S. 1917)
  …s-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.…

Authorities Cited

• King v. Mullins, 171 U.S. 404 (U.S. 1898)