BODKIN
v.
EDWARDS
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.
Edwards made a homestead entry on public land in California, but Bodkin contested the entry and obtained its cancellation, subsequently receiving a patent to the land through various homestead and soldiers' rights proceedings. Edwards sued to have Bodkin declared a trustee of the title, alleging that matters presented by Edwards before the land department were improperly disregarded, and the district court and Circuit Court of Appeals both found the factual allegations true and ruled in Edwards' favor. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that where both lower courts concurrently find facts in the same way based on the evidence, this Court accepts such findings unless clear error is shown, and no such error appeared in the record.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Van Devanter delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a suit by Edwards to have Bodkin declared a trustee for him of the title to a quarter section of land in California. While the land was public and subject to entry. under the homestead law, Edwards, a qualified applicant, made a homestead entry of it and afterwards submitted final proofs in due course. Bodkin instituted a contest against the entry and obtained its cancellation by the land department. The land officers then permitted Bodkin to make a homestead entry of the tract, after-wards allowed him to relinquish that entry and make others of the same tract under soldiers’ additional rights of which he was the assignee, and finally. patented the tract to him. During all' these proceedings Edwards actively asserted-the validity _of his claim and sought to interpose it as an obstacle to passing The-title to'Bodkin. This suit was brought shortly -after the patents issued. Apparently Edwards himself drafted the bill. The District Gourt dismissed it without leave to amend and he appealed. The Circuit Court of Appeals, while recognizing that the bill was somewhat inartificial, held that it contained allegations which, if true, disclosed a right to the relief sought. The decree of dismissal was accordingly reversed. 249 Fed. Rep.
562. When the case got back to the District Court the form of the bill was helped by amendments, but the substance remained substantially. as before. Bodkin answered and the issues were tried. The court found that the material allegations of the bill were true; that in the proceedings before the land department matters presented by Edwards which should have been considered were not considered, and that in consequence the title was passed to Bodkin when it should have gone to Edwards. A decree for the latter followed and Bodkin appealed. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this decree, and in the course of its opinion said: “A careful review of the testimony assures us that all material allegations of the bill of complaint have been substantiated.” 265 Fed. Rep.
621. Bodkin then took a further appeal to this court, the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals not being final under § 128 of the Judicial Code.
The appellee, Edwards, now moves that the appeal be dismissed, or in the alternative that the decree be affirmed, under Rule 6, 222 U. S., Appendix, p. 10. The appellant, Bodkin, although served with the motion and supporting brief, has not presented any brief in opposition.
The motion to . dismiss must be denied and the one to affirm sustained. The case as presented here turns essentially on questions of fact. Both courts below on a review of the evidence have found the facts in the same way. This court, under a settled rule, accepts such concurring findings unless clear error is shown. Page v. Rogers, 211 U. S. 575, 577; Washington Securities Co. v. United. States, 234 U. S. 76, 78; Wright-Blodgett Co. v. United States, 236 U. S. 397, 402; National Bank of Athens v. Shackelford, 239 U. S.
81. No such error is shown by the record before us. Besides, it does not contain all the evidence that was before the courts below, a part having been omitted under the appellant’s specification of what should be included. In these circumstances, to retain the case for oral argument in regular course would result ip harmful delay and serve no useful purpose.
Decree affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Tex. & NEW Orleans R.R. Co. v. Bhd. of Ry. & S.S. Clerks, 281 U.S. 548 (U.S. 1930)…s in which two courts concur, unless clear error is shown. Stuart v. Hayden, 169 U. S. 1, 14; Texas & Pacific Railway Company v. Railroad Commission, 232 U. S. 338; Washington Securities Company v. United States, 234 U. S. 76, 78; Bodkin v. Edwards, 255 U. S. 221, 223. We cannot say that there was such error in this case. Both the District Court and the Circuit Court of Appeals approached the consideration of the evidence as to intimidation and coercion, and re [*559] solved such conflicts as the evidence pr…
-
Norton v. Larney, 266 U.S. 511 (U.S. 1925)…ission’s decision related and to whom the allotment was made. The well-settled rule of this court is that where two courts have reached the same conclusion upon a question of fact it will be accepted here unless clearly erroneous. Bodkin v. Edwards, 255 U. S. 221, 223; Baker v. Schofield, 243 U. S. 114, 118. An examination of the evidence not only fails to disclose such clear error but, on the contrary, establishes the conclusion of the lower courts by a clear preponderance. Decree affirmed.…
-
McLaren v. Fleischer, 256 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1921)…d to great respect and, if acted upon for a .number of years, will not be disturbed except for cogent reasons.2 The case of Edwards v. Bodkin, 249 Fed. Rep. 562, and [*482] 265 Fed. Rep. 621, in which there was a decree of affirmance by this court, 255 U. S. 221, is cited as upholding a different view of the act. The opinions rendered by the Circuit Court of Appeals do indicate that it was disposed to think the words “thirty days from date of such notice” should be taken literally and strictly, but a carefu…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Page v. Rogers in Bankruptcy, 211 U.S. 575 (U.S. 1909)
- Wright-Blodgett Co. v. United States, 236 U.S. 397 (U.S. 1915)
- Wash. Sec. Co. v. United States, 234 U.S. 76 (U.S. 1914)
- Nat'l Bank of Athens v. Shackelford in Bankruptcy for Webb, 239 U.S. 81 (U.S. 1915)