NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY
v.
HASSE
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.
The Northern Pacific Railway Company sought to eject defendants from land that was part of its railroad right of way granted by federal statute, but the defendants claimed title through a homestead patent and adverse possession under Washington's statute of limitations. The Supreme Court reversed the Washington Supreme Court's judgment, holding that a federal grant of railroad right of way is effective from the date of the granting act itself, and therefore the statute of limitations does not begin to run before the railroad company's right vested, even if the railroad was not constructed until after the defendants entered the land.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller delivered the opinion of the court.-
This was an action of ejectment brought by the Norther; Pacific Railway. Company in the Superior Court of Kittjtai County, Washington, to recover possession of part of its right of way, the land being partly within and partly without a right of way of two hundred feet in width. Defendants asserted title by virtue of a homestead application, filed May 24, 1883, final proof July 12,1888, and patent September 27,1889;- and adverse possession for the period named in the statute of limitations. Judgment was entered in favor of the. railway company, and 'defendants carried the case by appeal to the Supreme Court of Washington, which held the statute of limitations applicable, reversed the judgment below and remanded the case with directions to dismiss the action. 28 Washington, 353.
The grant of right of way, unlike the land grant, was effective from the date of the act, and the fact that the railroad was not built until after defendants’ entry does not affect the disposition of the case. Railroad Company v. Baldwin, 103 U. S. 426; Bybee v. Oregon & California Railroad Company, 139 U. S. 663, 679. .
The judgment must be reversed‘on the authority of Northern Pacific Railway Company, v. Townsend, 190 U. S. 267, and remanded for further proceedings hot inconsistent with the opinion of this court in Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Ely, ante, p. 1.
Judgment reversed.
Mr. Justice Harlan dissented.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Harris, 215 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1910)…act of 1866 was the company authorized to construct a road through or near it. True, as held in Railroad Company v. Baldwin, 103 U. S. 426; Bybee v. Oregon & California Railroad Company, 139 U. S. 663, 679; Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Hasse, 197 U. S. 9, 10, the grant of the right of way is absolute, and takes effect as of the date of the grant. But that date must be found in an act prescribing the finally adopted route. A case much relied upon by the railroad company, as showing the intent of Con…
-
Stuart v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 227 U.S. 342 (U.S. 1913)…the lands in controversy in 1870, and has been in operation ever since. But the right of way to its full width has not been occupied and used. This, however, makes no difference. See cases cited immediately above and Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Hasse, 197 U. S. 9; Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. Cook, 163 U. S. 491, 497. In this connection it is to be remembered that the grant of the right of way differed from the grant of alternate odd-numbered sections in that, while both were expressed in the words o…
Authorities Cited
- N. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Townsend, 190 U.S. 267 (U.S. 1903)
- R.R. Co. v. Baldwin, 103 U.S. 426 (U.S. 1880)
- Bybee v. Or. & Cal. R.R. Co., 139 U.S. 663 (U.S. 1891)