UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
v.
SIDES
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.
Union Pacific Railroad Company brought an ejectment action to recover land in Colorado from defendants Sides and Scherrer, and the Colorado Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment for the plaintiff. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the state court's decision and remanded the case, finding that the lower court had properly entered judgment for the railroad on the same legal grounds established in the related case Snow v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the court.
Action in ejectment, brought by plaintiff in error, called here plaintiff, .against defendants in error, here called defendants, in the District Court of Arapahoe County, State of Colorado.
Except’ as to the description of the land the complaint is substantially the same as that in No. 682 and presents the same legal rights and titles. Defendant Sides demurred to the complaint-; Scherrer denied-being in possession of the land and disclaimed any claim to it. The demurrer was overruled and Scherrer answered, setting up defenses which are in substance the same as in No. 682. To the defenses plaintiff filed demurrers, which were abstained. Sides elécted to plead no further and the case coming on for trial and certain facts being agreed upon as testified to, objection to the materiality of which was made, motions to dismiss and for judgment were also made and overruled. Judgment was entered for plaintiff. It was reversed by the Supreme Court of the State, for the reasons stated in its opinion in Snow v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., that is, No. 682, ante, p. 204, 133 Pac. Rep. 1040.
This. case was submitted with No. 682, involves the same questions and is determined by its decision.-
Judgment reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
Mu. Justice Hughes dissents.
-' Mr. Justice Holmes and Mr. Justice. Pitney took no part in the decision.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gray v. Moss, 115 Fla. 701 (Fla. 1934)…eral organic mandate that “no State shall * * * pass any * * * iaw impairing the obligation of contracts.”. See [*713] Edwards v. Kearzey, 96 U. S. 595, 24 Law Ed. 793; 12 C. J. 1076. See also Kener v. La Grange Mills, 231 U. S. 215, 34 Sup. Ct. 83, 58 Law Ed. 189; Bank of Minden v. Clement, 256 U. S. 126, 41 Sup. Ct. 408, 65 Law Ed. 857; Mobile v. Watson, 116 U. S. 289, 6 Sup. Ct. 398, 29 Law Ed. 620; Humphreys v. State, 108 Fla. 92, 145 So. 858; Smith-Courtney Co. v. Bd. Road Comm'rs (N. C.), 108 S. E. 443;…
-
In re Gordon v. Gordon, 90 F.2d 583 (2d Cir. 1937)…surance and a deposit in a savings hank. W. B. Worthen Co. v. Thomas, 292 U.S. 426, 54 S.Ct. 816, 78 L.Ed. 1344, 93 A.L.R. 173; Bank of Minden v. Clement, 256 U.S. 126, 41 S.Ct. 408, 65 L.Ed. 857; Kener v. La Grange Mills, 231 U.S. 215, 34 S.Ct. 83, 58 L.Ed. 189; Edwards v. Kearzey, 96 U.S. 595, 24 L.Ed. 793; Gunn v. Barry, 15 Wall. 610, 21 L.Ed. 212; Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122, 4 L.Ed. 529; In re Messinger (C.C.A.) 29 F.(2d) 158, 68 A.L.R. 1205; In re Kest (C.C.A.) 78 F.(2d) 705; Addiss v. Seli…
-
Carscadden v. Territory of Alaska, 105 F.2d 377 (9th Cir. 1939)…L.Ed. 279, expressly so provided. Union Pac. R. R. v. Laramie Stock Yards, 231 U.S. 190, 34 S.Ct. 101, 58 L.Ed. 179; Union Pac. R. R. Co. v. Snow, 231 U.S. 204, 34 S.Ct. 104, 58 L.Ed. 184; Union Pac. R. R. Co. v. Sides, 231 U.S. 213, 34 S.Ct. 107, 58 L.Ed. 189; United States v. Morena, 245 U.S. 392,. 38 S.Ct. 151, 62 L.Ed. 359. Compare: Chapman v. County of Douglas, 107 U.S.. 348, 358, 2 S.Ct. 62, 27 L.Ed. 378. See the cases in note 1. In Northern Pacific Railroad v. Hambly, 154 U.S. 349, 361, 14 S.Ct.…