MINNESOTA COMPANY
v.
NATIONAL 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.
The Supreme Court affirmed a Michigan Supreme Court decision regarding title to land, rejecting a litigant's attempt to relitigate a case the Court had already decided twice. The Court held that once questions affecting property titles are decided by courts, they should not be revisited or reconsidered, as the stability of such decisions is essential to the public interest and the integrity of property rights.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
The court having examined the case,
Mr. Justice GRIER now delivered its opinion, and after stating the identity of the present case with the former, what was decided in the former and involved in this, and the history as above given, expressed himself in behalf of the Bench as follows:
This is another, and it is to be hoped the last attempt to persuade this court to reverse their decision in this case.
Where questions arise which affect titles to land it is of great importance to the public that when they are once decided they should no longer be considered open. Such decisions become rules of property, and many titles may be injuriously affected by their change. Legislatures may alter or change their laws, without injury, as they affect the future only; but where courts vacillate and overrule their own decisions on the construction of statutes affecting the title to real property, their decisions are retrospective and may affect titles purchased on the faith of their stability. Doubtful questions on subjects of this nature, when once decided, should be considered no longer doubtful or subject to change. Parties should not be encouraged to speculate on a change of the law when the administrators of it is changed. Courts ought not to be compelled to bear the infliction of repeated arguments by obstinate litigants, challenging the justice of their well-considered and solemn judgments.
The decision of the Supreme Court of Michigan, in conformity with the opinion of this court twice pronounced on the same title, is hereupon
Affirmed with costs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605 (U.S. 1983)…e basements of courthouses combing property records to upset established titles.10 Our reports are replete with reaffirmations that questions affecting titles to land, once decided, should no longer be considered open. Minnesota Co. v. National Co., 3 Wall. 332, 334 (1866); United States v. Title Ins. Co., 265 U. S. 472, 486 (1924). Certainty of rights is particularly important with respect to water rights in the Western United States. The development of that area of the United States would not have been…
-
Nevada v. United States, 463 U.S. 110 (U.S. 1983)…460 U. S. 605, 620 (1983); United States v. California & Oregon Land Co., 192 U. S. 355, 358-359 (1904); 2 A. Freeman, Law of Judgments § 874, pp. 1848-1849 (5th ed. 1925). As this Court explained over a century ago in Minnesota Co. v. National Co., 3 Wall. 332 (1866): “Where questions arise which affect titles to land it is of great importance to the public that when they are once decided they should no longer be considered open. Such decisions become rules of property, and many titles may be injuriously…
-
Or. ex rel. State Land Bd. v. Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co., 429 U.S. 363 (U.S. 1977)…t, 321 U. S. 649 (1944). Even if we were to focus on the effect of our decision upon rules of substantive property law, our concern for unsettling titles would lead us to overrule Bonelli, rather than to retain it. See Minnesota Co. v. National Co., 3 Wall. 332, 334 (1866). Since one system of resolution of property disputes has been adhered to from 1845 until 1973, and the other only for the past three years, a return to the former would more closely conform to the expectations of property owners than wou…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence