Wilcox v. Jackson, 10 L.ed. 264- Land Patent is Perfect Title

Page 1

38 U.S. 498, 13 Pet. 498, 1839 WL 4329 (U.S.Ill.), 10 L.Ed. 264(Cite as: 38 U.S. 498, 1839 WL 4329 (U.S.Ill.))

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

Page 2


Supreme Court of the United StatesDE LA FAYETTE WILCOX, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,

v.JOHN JACKSON, ON THE DEMISE OF MURRAY

M'CONNEL, DEFENDANT IN ERROR.January Term, 1839

**1 ERROR to the Superior Court of the state of Illinois.

In the Circuit Court of Cook county, in the state ofIllinois, an action of ejectment was commenced inFebruary, 1836, by John Jackson, on the demise ofMurray M'Connel, against De la Fayette Wilcox, for therecovery of a part of the military post of Fort Dearborn, atChicago, in the state of Illinois; the defendant being thenin possession of the premises as the commander of thepost. The defendant appeared, and after the usualpleadings, the cause was brought to trial in October, 1836,and submitted to the Court on an agreed statement offacts, which was to be taken as if found as a specialverdict.

The premises sued for are part of fractional section 10, intownship 39, north of range 14, east of the third principalmeridian, in the county of Cook, and state of Illinois; andembrace the military post called Fort Dearborn, of whichpost, at the time of the bringing of this suit, and theservice of the declaration therein, the said defendant, Dela Fayette Wilcox, was in the possession of the *500 saidpremises, and was the commanding officer under theauthority of the United States; which post was establishedby the United States in 1804, and was thereafter occupiedby the troops of the United States till August 16, 1812,when the troops were massacred, and the post taken bythe enemies of the country. It was reoccupied by thetroops on the 4th of July, 1816; in which year the UnitedStates caused to be built upon the fractional section, No.10, T. 39, N. R. 14 east, some factory houses for the useof the Indian department. The troops continued to occupythe post until the month of May, 1823, when it wasevacuated by order of the government, and was left inpossession of Dr. A. Wolcott, Indian agent at Chicago.

On the 19th of August, in the year 1828, the military postwas again occupied by the troops of the government,acting under the order of the Secretary of War, as one ofthe military posts of the United States. The post was againevacuated by the troops of the government in the monthof May, 1831, though the government never gave up thepossession of the military post, called Fort Dearborn; but

left the same in the possession of one Oliver Newberry,who authorized George Dole to take and keep the same inrepair; which said Dole accordingly did. Said post wasagain occupied by the troops of the government in June,1832, under the command of Major Whistler, an office inthe army of the United States. At the time Major Whistlertook possession, being at the time of the war with theSock and Fox Indians, several hundred persons were inthe fort for security against the Indians. The military posthas been occupied by the troops, and was generallyknown at Chicago to be so occupied from that date up tothe commencement of this suit, and is still used for thatpurpose.

When the military post was evacuated in 1831, thequartermaster at the post, acting under orders, sold agreater part of the movable property, in and about thegarrison, belonging to the government, but sold none ofthe buildings belonging to the military post.

**2 In the year 1817, John Baptiste Beaubean bought ofone John Dean, who was an army contractor at the post, ahouse built upon said land, by the said Dean, and gavehim therefor one thousand dollars; attached to the housewas an enclosure used and occupied by said Dean, as agarden and field, and Mr. Beaubean then took possessionof the house and enclosure, and continued in possession,cultivating a part of the enclosure every year, from theyear 1817 to the 17th of June, 1836.

In 1823, the factory houses built at the post upon the tractof land, were by order of the Secretary of the Treasurysold, and Capt. Henry Whiting became the purchaserthereof. In the same year Whiting sold said improvementsto the American Fur Company, and the company for thesum of five hundred dollars sold to said Beaubean, whotook possession thereof, and continued to occupy thesame, together with a part of the quarter section of land,to the *501 date of the commencement of this suit. Mr.Beaubean continued to occupy said houses and enclosureupon the land, and to cultivate a part of the landunmolested and undisturbed by any person whatever,from the year 1817 up to the day of the commencement ofthis suit.

The land in question was surveyed by the government inthe year 1821.

Since the military post was reoccupied by the UnitedStates troops in 1832, as before stated, to wit, before thefirst day of May, 1834, the United States built a


Page 3


lighthouse upon part of the land, and have kept constantlyenclosed and cultivated for the use of the said garrison atleast twenty acres of said land. The United States troops,by order and consent of the government, have also usedand occupied various other government lands near andadjoining the quarter section of land.

On the 2d of September, 1824, Dr. A. Wolcott, Indianagent, then stationed at Chicago, wrote the followingletter to the Secretary of War of the United States, to wit:

‘Fort Dearborn, Chicago, Sept. 2, 1824.

‘Sir: I have the honour to suggest to your considerationthe propriety of making a reservation of this post and thefraction on which it is situated, for the use of this agency.It is very convenient for that purpose, as the quartersafford sufficient accommodation for all the persons in theemploy of the agency, and the storehouses are safe andcommodious places for the provisions and other propertythat may be in charge of the agent. The buildings andother property, by being in possession of a public officer,will be preserved for public use, should it ever benecessary to occupy them again with a military force.

As to the size of the fraction I am not certain, but I think itcontains about sixty acres; a considerable greater tractthan that is under fence; but that would be abundantlysufficient for the use of the agency, and contains all thebuildings attached to the fort, such as a mill, barn, stable,&c. which it would be desirable to preserve.

**3 I have the honour to be, &c.,

ALEXANDER WOLCOTT, Jun., HON. J. C.CALHOUN, Secretary of War.

Indian Agent.'

Which letter John C. Calhoun, then Secretary of War ofthe United States, on the 30th of September, 1824,enclosed with the following note to George Graham, Esq.,Commissioner of the General Land Office of the UnitedStates.

‘Department of War, 30th Sept. 1824.

‘Sir: I enclose herewith a copy of a letter from Dr.Wolcott, Indian agent at Chicago, and request you willdirect a reservation to be made for the use of the Indian

department at that post, agreeably to his suggestions. Ihave the honour to be, &c.

GEORGE GRAHAM, Esq.,

J. C. CALHOUN.

Commissioner of the General Land Office, TreasuryDepartment.'*502

And thereupon, on the first day of October, 1824, GeorgeGraham, then commissioner of the land office, addresseda letter in reply to the Secretary of War, at the same timesubjoining to the letter of the said Secretary of War, thisnote, to wit: ‘Answered the first of October, 1824, and thefrac. Sec. 10, T. 39, N. R. 14 E. coloured and marked onthe map, as reserved for military purposes.’

The letter in reply is as follows, to wit:

‘General Land Office, 1st of October, 1824.

‘Sir: In compliance with your request, I have directed thatthe fractional section 10, Township 39, N. R. 14 E.,containing 57.50 acres and within which Fort Dearborn issituated, should be reserved from sale for militarypurposes. I am, &c.

GEORGE GRAHAM.

HON. J. C. CALHOUN, Secretary of War.'

Which fractional section, mentioned in the foregoingletter of George Graham, embraces the premises sued for,and Fort Dearborn, occupied by the United States asaforesaid.

After the writing and receipt of the letters aforesaid, towit, on the 29th day of May, 1830, Congress passed a lawgranting the right of pre-emption upon the public lands toevery person who cultivated any part of a quarter sectionof said land in 1829, and was in the actual possessionthereof on the 29th day of May, 1830; but which pre-emption right does not extend to any land which isreserved from sale by act of Congress, or by order of thePresident, or which may have been appropriated for anypurpose whatsoever, or for the use of the United States, oreither of the states in which any of the public lands maybe situated. Mr. Beaubean having cultivated a part of F


Page 4


section in 1829, and having been in possession of a partso cultivated on the 29th day of May, 1830; on the 7th dayof May, 1831, made application to the Register andReceiver of the United States land office at Palestine, inIllinois, and offered to prove a pre-emption upon the land,and purchase the same at private sale, under the pre-emption law, which claim of pre-emption upon the landwas not by the Register and Receiver at Palestine allowedto Mr. Beaubean.

**4 One Robert Kenzie, on the 7th day of May, 1831,made application to the Register and Receiver of the landoffice, to be allowed to enter at private sale a part of thesame fractional section 10; and the claim by the saidRegister and Receiver was then passed and allowed, andRobert Kenzie was then permitted to enter at private sale,under pre-emption law, the north fraction of fractionalsection ten.

After the application of Mr. Beaubean to the Register andReceiver at Palestine as aforesaid, to wit, on the 7th and12th of May, 1831, Joseph Kitchell, then Register of theland office, addressed letters to Elijah Hayward, Esq.,then Commissioner of the General Land Office of theUnited States, informing him of the application of the saidBeaubean to enter said S. W. F section 10, *503 town 39,north of range 14 east, under the pre-emption act; and onthe 2d of November, 1831, Mr. Beaubean addressed aletter to the said Hayward, commissioner, &c., stating thatin the month of May preceding he had filed in the officeat Palestine aforesaid, proof of his right of pre-emption tothe land, and insisting that he was entitled to have theclaim allowed; and in answer thereto was informed by thecommissioner by letter, dated the 2d of February, 1832,that said south-west quarter of said fractional section ten,T. 39, N. R. 14 E. was reserved for military purposes. Onthe 1st of October, 1824, several other persons, in behalfof said Beaubean, after his application as aforesaid, priorto the said 2d of February, 1832, made inquiry by letter ofsaid commissioner touching the same, and were informedby the commissioner that the tract of land had beenreserved for military purposes, and said Beaubean'sapplication as aforesaid was rejected.

Afterwards, to wit, on the 19th day of June, 1834,Congress passed an act to revive the pre-emption law ofthe 29th of May, 1830, by the first section of which act isprovided that every settler or occupant of the public landsprior to the passage of this act, who is now in possession,and cultivated any part thereof in 1833, shall be entitled toall the benefits and privileges of the act entitled an act to

grant pre-emption rights to settlers on public lands,approved 29th May, 1830, and the act is hereby revived,and shall continue in force two years from the passage ofthis act and no longer; and Mr. Beaubean havingcultivated a part of the fractional quarter of section ten in1833, and having been in the actual possession andoccupancy of the part, so by him cultivated, on the 19thday of June, 1834, the date of the passage of the lastrecited law, did, in the month of July, 1834, apply to theRegister and Receiver of the United States land office atDanville, in Illinois, for leave to prove a pre-emption, andenter the fractional quarter under the last recited act;which application and claim of Beaubean was rejected bythe said Register and Receiver at Danville aforesaid, whoinformed Beaubean that said land was reserved formilitary purposes.

**5 After the writing of the letters by Dr. Wolcott, Indianagent, and J. C. Calhoun, Secretary of War, and GeorgeGraham, Commissioner of the General Land Office,herein before referred to and set forth, to wit, on the 26thday of June, 1834, Congress by a law approved upon thatday created two additional land districts in Illinois; onecalled north-west and the other the north-east landdistricts of the state of Illinois, and the last mentioneddistrict includes the land in controversy.

By the fourth section of said act it is provided that thePresident shall be authorized, so soon as the survey shallbe completed, ‘to cause to be offered for sale, in themanner prescribed by law, all the lands lying in said landdistrict at the land offices, in the respective districts inwhich the lands so offered is embraced, reserving onlysection sixteen in each township, the tract reserved for thevillage of Galena; such other tracts as have been grantedto individuals *504 and the state of Illinois, and suchreservation as the President shall deem necessary to retainfor military posts; any law of Congress heretofore existingto the contrary notwithstanding.’

It is further provided by said act, that there ‘shall beestablished in each of said land districts a land office atsuch time and place as the President may deemnecessary;’ and that a land office was established in saidnorth-east land district before the 1st of May, 1835, whichis the land office at Chicago.

After the passage of the act, and after the land officeaforesaid was established, the President of the UnitedStates, on the 12th day of February, 1835, made andpublished his proclamation directing various lands in said


Page 5


north-eastern land district to be sold at said land office atChicago. Among said lands so proclaimed for sale, is thesaid fractional section 10, in town 39, N. R. 14 E. unlessthe same is excepted by the general exception in saidproclamation, in the words following, to wit: ‘The landsreserved by law for the use of schools, and for otherpurposes, will be excluded from the sale.’

The lands were directed by the proclamation to be sold atChicago land office aforesaid, on the 15th day of June,1835, and before the said 15th day of June, to wit, in themonth of April, 1835, the Commissioner of the GeneralLand Office caused to be transmitted to said land office atChicago the extended plat of the land in the saidproclamation mentioned, marking and colouring uponsaid plat certain lands to be reserved from sale; but neitherthe fractional section 10, or any of the divisions thereof,were so marked or coloured to be reserved from sale.

At the bottom of the President's proclamation is a generalnotice requiring all persons who claim the right of pre-emption to any of the lands in the proclamationmentioned, to appear before the Register and Receiver ofthe land office before the day appointed by saidproclamation for the sale of said lands, and prove theirpre-emption; and after the notice the said John BaptisteBeaubean did, on the 28th day of May, 1835, appearbefore the register and receiver of the land office atChicago, there prove to the satisfaction of the saidRegister and Receiver that he was entitled to the right ofpre-emption to the said south-west fractional quarter offractional section ten, and Mr. Beaubean did, on the 28thday of May, 1835, enter and purchase at private sale ofthe United States and of the Register of said land office,the south-west fractional section ten, and then and therepaid to the Receiver of said land office one dollar andtwenty-five cents per acre, in full payment for said land,and obtained from the Receiver aforesaid the followingreceipt, to wit:

**6 ‘Land Office, at Chicago, Illinois; 28th May, 1835.

‘Pre-emption Act, 19th June, 1834.

No. 6. Received of John Baptiste Beaubean, of Cookcounty, Illinois, the sum of ninety-four dollars ano sixty-one cents, being in *505 full payment for the south-westfractional quarter of section No. 10, in township No. 39,north of range No. 14, east of the third principal meridian,containing seventy-five acres and sixty-nine hundredthsof an acre, at the rate of $1 25 per acre.

E. D. TAYLOR, Receiver.

$94 61.-Michigan paper.'

Mr. Beaubean also obtained from the register of the lastmentioned land office a certificate in the words andfigures following, to wit:--

‘Land Office at Chicago, Illinois, May 28th, 1835.

‘No. 6. It is hereby certified that, in pursuance of law,John Baptiste Beaubean, of Cook county, state of Illinois,on this day purchased of the register of this office the lotor south-west fractional quarter of section number ten, intownship number 39, north of range fourteen east,containing seventy-five and sixty-nine hundredths acres,at the rate of one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre,amounting to ninety-four dollars and seventy-five cents,for which the said John Baptiste Beaubean has madepayment in full as required by law. Now, therefore, be itknown, that on the presentation of this certificate to theCommissioner of the General Land Office, the said JohnBaptiste Beaubean shall be entitled to receive a patent forthe lot above described.

JAMES WHITLOCK, Register.

Pre-emption act, 1834.'

Which certificate was presented to the Commissioner ofthe General Land Office, and filed in the office.

Afterwards, to wit, on the 4th day of March, 1836, theRegister of the said land office at Chicago made, signed,and delivered to Mr. Beaubean his certificate in the wordsand figures following, to wit:--

‘Land Office, Chicago, Illinois.

‘I, James Whitlock, register of the land office at Chicago,in the state of Illinois, do hereby certify that John BaptisteBeaubean, of the town of Chicago and state of Illinois,did, on the 28th day of May, in the year of our Lord 1835,under and by virtue of an act of Congress, passed on the19th day of June, 1834, entitled, ‘An act to revive an actgranting pre-emption rights to settlers on the public lands,passed the 29th day of May, 1830, prove to thesatisfaction of the register and receiver that the said


Page 6


Beaubean was entitled to the right of pre-emption undersaid act of the 19th of June, 1834, to the south-westfractional quarter of fractional section number ten, intownship 39, north of range number fourteen east, and thesaid Beaubean did then enter and purchase of the UnitedStates and of the register of said office the said south-westfractional quarter of fractional section number ten, intownship number thirty-nine, north of range numberfourteen east, of the third principal meridian, situated inthe district of lands offered for sale at the land office atChicago aforesaid, and is included in the north-east *506land district of the state of Illinois, which tract of landcontains seventy-five acres and sixty-nine hundredths ofan acre; for which tract of land he, the said Beaubean,paid the sum of ninety-four dollars and sixty-one cents,being one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre in fullpayment for the same.

**7 All of which appears by the papers on file in said landoffice, and by the maps, plats, and records of said officenow here.

Given under my hand, as register as aforesaid, at the landoffice aforesaid, this 4th day of March, in the year of ourLord 1836.

JAMES WHITLOCK, Register.'

Afterwards, to wit, on the 2d day of July, 1836, Congresspassed an act entitled an act to confirm the sales of publiclands in certain cases; by the second section of which it isprovided that ‘in all cases where any entry has been madeunder the pre-emption laws, pursuant to instructions sentto the register and receiver from the treasury department,and the proceedings have been in all other respects fairand regular, such entries and sales are hereby confirmed,and patents shall be issued thereon as in other cases.’

It is admitted that the defendant, Wilcox, at thecommencement of this suit, and at the time of the serviceof the declaration in ejectment herein, was in theoccupancy and possession of the premises in saiddeclaration mentioned, which is a stockade of pickets,including some wooden buildings in which the soldiersand officers reside, and that the rents and profits of saidpremises then was, and still are of the value of threedollars per month.

It is also admitted that said defendant Wilcox then was,and still is an officer in the United States army, and was

ordered into possession and command of the military poston the premises, together with the United States troopsunder his command, by order of the Secretary of War ofthe United States; and that said Wilcox claims no right ofownership in himself to the land, but is in possession ofand occupies the same not in his own right, but as anofficer of the army of the United States only, in thecommand of the post, acting under order of the Secretaryof War, and of his superior officer, and of the UnitedStates.

After the purchase of the said land by Mr. Beaubien, asherein before stated, to wit, on the sixth day of February,1836, he, the said Beaubien, by deed duly executed,acknowledged, and recorded, according to the laws of thesaid state of Illinois, for and in consideration of the sumof _____ dollars therein expressed, sold and conveyed thesaid premises, in the declaration mentioned, to MurrayM'Connel, the lessor of the plaintiff; who purchased witha knowledge that a controversy existed between Mr.Beaubean and the government about said land.

It is further admitted that after the purchase of the land byJ. B. Beaubean, as herein before stated, Elijah Hayward,Esq., then Commissioner of the General Land Office, onthe 31st of July, 1835, addressed a letter to the Registerand Receiver of the land office, *507 at Chicago, statingthat it had been represented to the department that theland officers at Chicago had permitted to be sold saidsouth-west fractional section ten, T. 39 N. R. 14 E.including the site of Fort Dearborn, and informing themthat such sale is invalid in consequence of the reservationand appropriation of said fraction for military purposes,since the year 1824, and directing the Receiver to refundto Mr. Beaubean the amount of the purchase money paidthereon, which money was tendered by the Receiver toMr. Beaubean, who refused to receive the same.

**8 On the 23d of January, in the year 1834, ElijahHayward, then Commissioner of the General Land Office,addressed a note to the Hon. Lewis Cass, then Secretaryof War of the United States, enclosing a copy of the letterof the 30th of September, 1824, from the then Secretaryof War, Mr. Calhoun, requesting that said tract of land atChicago, upon which Fort Dearborn was situated, mightbe reserved for the Indian department, and a copy of theCommissioner Graham's reply, of the 1st of October,1824, herein before set forth, stating that he had directedthe land to be reserved for military purposes, and afterstating that the tract of land in question, designated asfractional section ten, T. 39 N. R. 14 E. was claimed


Page 7


under the act of Congress, granting pre-emption rights;and Mr. Commissioner Hayward then requested saidSecretary Cass to advise the office whether it was then (towit, on the 23d of January, 1834,) needed by the wardepartment, and if so, whether it is considered a militaryreservation, or as a reservation for the use of the Indiandepartment; and on the 21st of March, 1834, the Secretaryof War addressed a letter in answer to the inquiry of theCommissioner, informing him that the reservation atChicago, alluded to in the letter of the Commissioner, ofthe 23d January, 1834, was wanted, and was actually usedfor military purposes.

It is admitted that various persons, from time to time,have resided upon the fractional quarter section ten, aswell as Mr. Beaubean, but all those persons were all, insome way, connected with the army, and acting under thecommand of the United States' officers; and that oneSamuel T. Brady, (who was a settler at said military post,)in June, 1835, presented his claim to the right of pre-emption to the land, before the register and receiver of thesaid land office at Chicago, but which claim was rejectedby the land officers, or never acted upon by them.

All the facts herein stated are admitted to be true; but theyare not admitted to be evidence in the cause, unless theCourt should be of opinion, upon the hearing of the case,that the facts, or any of them, would be admissible asevidence, if offered in evidence by one party, and objectedto by the other, upon the trial of the cause before a jury.

It is agreed that, if the Court should be of opinion, uponthe hearing of the case, that the law of the case is with theplaintiff, a judgment shall be rendered, that he recover histerm aforesaid; and that he have his writ of possession,&c., and that a judgment be rendered *508 against thedefendant in favour of the plaintiff, for the use of the saidlessor, for the amount of the rents and profits in the saidplaintiff's declaration mentioned, together with his costs.But should the Court be of opinion that the law of the caseis with the defendant, then the plaintiff shall take nothingby his suit, and a judgment shall be rendered against thelessor of the plaintiff for the cost of this suit.

**9 Each party retains the right to remove the cause to theSupreme Court of the state of Illinois, by appeal or writ oferror.

The judge of the Circuit Court of Illinois gave judgmentfor the defendant: and an appeal was taken to the SupremeCourt of Illinois, by which Court the judgment of the

Circuit Court was reversed, and judgment entered for theplaintiff below.

To reverse this judgment, this writ of error was sued out atthe instance of the United States; they being the partiesinterested in the case.

West Headnotes

Public Lands 317 29

317 Public Lands 317II Survey and Disposal of Lands of United States 317II(B) Entries, Sales, and Possessory Rights 317k29 k. Lands Subject to Entry. Most CitedCases The grant by the register and receiver of the land office ofpre-emption to lands of the United States which hadbefore been reserved for military purposes is void.

Public Lands 317 34

317 Public Lands 317II Survey and Disposal of Lands of United States 317II(B) Entries, Sales, and Possessory Rights 317k34 k. Pre-Emption. Most Cited Cases Residence at a military post of the United States from1817 to 1836, by permission of the government, andpurchasing old buildings thereon when the post is nolonger occupied, gives no pre-emption right, especially ifthe land is expressly reserved for military purposes, andthe United States survey and build lighthouses thereon.

Public Lands 317 110

317 Public Lands 317II Survey and Disposal of Lands of United States 317II(J) Patents 317k110 k. Right to and Necessity for Patent inGeneral. Most Cited Cases A state has no power to declare that a title derived fromthe United States shall be deemed as perfect a title as if apatent had issued; the various acts of congress being tothe effect that title is reserved in the federal governmentuntil passed by a patent.The case was argued by Mr. Butler, and by Mr. Grundy,Attorney General, for the plaintiffs; and by Mr. Key andMr. Webster for the defendant.

For the plaintiff in error, it was contended:


http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=317

http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=317k110

http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=317k110

http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=317II(J)

http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=317II




http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=317II(B)






http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=317II(B)


Page 8


I. Even if he admitted that Beaubean was entitled to rightof pre-emption, and that the sale and the certificatesthereof were properly made to him; still the plaintiffcannot recover in this suit.

1. On the true construction of the several acts of Congressapplicable to the case; a patent is necessary to thecompletion of the legal title, and nothing short of it can,as against the United States, defeat their title in an actionof ejectment.

**10 2. The plaintiff can derive no aid from the law ofIllinois, referred to in the opinions of the Courts below;because that law, if it attempts to make the certificate ofthe Register of the land office evidence of title as againstthe United States, is repugnant to the ordinance of 1787;to the Constitution of the United States; and to the acts ofCongress for the disposal of the public lands, and is,therefore, null and void.

II. The land officers at Chicago had no jurisdiction orauthority to allow, or act on the pre-emption claim ofBeaubean; and the entry and pretended purchase by himwere, therefore, as against the United States, utterly nulland void.

1. Beaubean's possession and occupancy were subject tothe control of the officers and troops of the United Statesstationed at Fort Dearborn; and, therefore, he could notacquire, within the meaning of the acts of Congress, a pre-emption right to any part of the premises.

2. The premises in question were withdrawn from thegeneral operation of the pre-emption and other laws, bythe act of Congress of March 3d, 1819, ‘to authorise thesale of certain military sites.’*509

3. If not so withdrawn, they were yet excepted from thepre-emption laws of the 29th of May, 1830, and the 19thof June, 1834; because reserved and appropriated, or atleast appropriated, for use of the United States, within themeaning of those acts.

4. The act of June 26, 1834, creating additional landdistricts, gives no right of pre-emption; and the plaintiffcan therefore derive no title therefrom; and the premiseswere also excepted from that law, because reserved,within the meaning thereof, as necessary to be retained fora military post.

Ejectment for a tract of land in Cook county, Illinois,being a fractional section, embracing the military postcalled Fort Dearborn, at the time of the institution of thesuit; in the possession of the defendant as thecommanding officer of the United States. The post wasestablished in 1804, and was occupied by the troops of theUnited States until August 16th, 1812, when the troopswere massacred, and the fort taken by the enemy. It wasreoccupied by the United States in 1816, and continued tobe so held until May, 1823, during which time somefactory houses, for the use of the Indian department, wereerected on it. It was evacuated by order of the wardepartment in 1823, and was, by order of the department,again occupied by troops in 1828, as one of the militaryposts of the United States; was again evacuated in 1831,the government having authorized a person to take andkeep possession of it. It was again occupied by troops ofthe United States, in 1832, and continued so to be at thecommencement of this suit, being generally known atChicago to be occupied as a military post of the UnitedStates. The buildings about the garrison were not sold in1831, when it was evacuated; although a great part of themovable property in and about it, was sold. In 1817,Beaubean bought of an army contractor, for one thousanddollars, a house built on the land. There was attached tothe house an enclosure, occupied as a garden or field, ofwhich Beaubean continued in possession until 1836. In1823, the factory houses on the land were sold by order ofthe Secretary of War, and were bought by Beaubean, forfive hundred dollars. Of these he took possession, andcontinued to occupy them, and to cultivate the land,without interruption by the United States, until thecommencement of this suit. The United States, in May,1834, built a lighthouse on the land, and have kept twentyacres enclosed and cultivated. The land was surveyed bythe government of the United States, in 1821; and in1824, at the instance of the Indian agent at Chicago, theSecretary of War requested the commissioner of thegeneral land office to reserve this land for theaccommodation and protection of the property of theIndian agency; who, in 1821, informed the Secretary ofWar that he had directed this section of land to bereserved from sale, for military purposes. In May, 1831,Beaubean claimed this land, at the land office in Palestine,for pre-emption. This claim was rejected, and, by thecommissioner of the land office, he was, in February,1832, informed that the land was reserved for militarypurposes. This information was also given to others whoapplied on his behalf. In 1834, he applied for this land tothe office in Danville, and his application was rejected. In1835, Beaubean applied for the land to the land office at


Page 9


Chicago, when his claim to pre-emption was allowed; andhe paid the purchase money, and procured the register'scertificate. Beaubean sold and conveyed his interest to theplaintiff in the ejectment. Held, that Beaubean acquiredno title to the land by his entry; and that the right of theUnited States to the land was not divested or affected bythe entry at the land office at Chicago; or by any of theprevious acts of Beaubean.

**11 The decision of the Register and Receiver of a landoffice, in the absence of fraud, would be conclusive as tothe facts that the applicant for the land was then inpossession, and of his cultivating the land during thepreceding year; because these questions are directlysubmitted to those officers. Yet, if they undertake to grantpre-emptions to land, on which the law declares they shallnot be granted; then they are acting upon a subject matterclearly not within their jurisdiction; as much so as if aCourt, whose jurisdiction was declared not to extendbeyond a given sum, should attempt cognizance of a casebeyond that sum.

Appropriation of land by the government is nothing moreor less than setting it apart for some particular use. In thecase before the Court, there has been an appropriation ofthe land, not only in fact, but in law; for a military post;for an Indian agency; and for the erection of a lighthouse.

By the act of Congress of 1830, all lands are exemptedfrom pre-emption which are reserved from sale by orderof the President of the United States. The President speaksand acts through the heads of the several departments, inrelation to subjects which appertain to their respectiveduties. Both military posts, and Indian affairs, includingagencies, belong to the war department. A reservation oflands, made at the request of the *499 Secretary of War,for purposes in his department, must be considered asmade by the President of the United States within theterms of the act of Congress.

Whensoever a tract of land shall have once been legallyappropriated to any purpose, from that moment the landthus appropriated becomes severed from the mass ofpublic lands: and no subsequent law, or proclamation, orsale, would be construed to embrace it, or to operate uponit: although no other reservation were made of it.

The right to pre-emption was a bounty extended to settlersand occupants of the public domain. This bounty, itcannot be supposed, was designed to be extended to thesacrifice of public establishments, or of great public

interests.

Nothing passes a perfect title to public lands, with theexception of a few cases, but a patent. The exceptions are,where Congress grants lands, in words of present grant.The general rule applies as well to pre-emptions as toother purchases of public lands.

The act of the legislature of Illinois, giving a right to theholder of a register's certificate of the entry of publiclands to recover possession of such lands in an action ofejectment, does not apply to cases where a paramount titleto the lands is in the hands of the defendant, or of those herepresents. The exception in the law of Illinois, applies tocases in which the United States have not parted with thetitle to the land, by granting a patent for it.

A state has a perfect right to legislate as she may please inregard to the remedies to be prosecuted in her Courts; andto regulate the disposition of the property of her citizens,by descent, devise, or alienation. But Congress areinvested, by the Constitution, with the power of disposingof the public land, and making needful rules andregulations respecting it.

**12 Where a patent has not been issued for a part of thepublic lands, a state has no power to declare any title, lessthan a patent, valid against a claim of the United States tothe land; or against a title held under a patent granted bythe United States.

Whenever the question in any Court, state or federal, is,whether the title to property which had belonged to theUnited States has passed, that question must be resolvedby the laws of the United States. But whenever theproperty has passed, according to those laws, then theproperty, like all other in the state, is subject to statelegislation; so far as that legislation is consistent with theadmission that the title passed and vested according to thelaws of the United States.

Every tribunal acting judicially, whilst acting within thesphere of its jurisdiction, where no appellate tribunal iscreated, its judgment is final; and even where there issuch an appellate power, their judgment is conclusivewhere it only comes collaterally in question; so long as itis unreversed. But directly the reverse is true, in relationto the judgment of any Court, acting beyond the pale of itsauthority. This principle is concisely and accurately statedby this Court in the case of Elliot and others vs. Peirsol


Page 10


and others. 1 Peters, 340.Mr. Justice BARBOUR delivered the opinion of theCourt:

This is a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the state ofIllinois, prosecuted under the 25th section of the judiciaryact of 1789. It was an action of ejectment, brought by thedefendant in error against the plaintiff in error.

From an agreed case stated in the record, the followingappear to be the material facts upon which the questionsto be decided arise. The land in question is part offractional section 10, in township 39, north of range 14,east of the third principal meridian, in the county of Cook,and state of Illinois; and embraces the military post calledFort Dearborn, of which post, at the time of bringing thesuit, Wilcox was in possession, as the commanding officerof the United States; which post was established by theUnited States in 1804, and was thereafter occupied by thetroops of the United States until the 16th August, 1812,when the troops were massacred, and the post taken bythe enemy. It was re-occupied in 1816, when the UnitedStates built upon said fractional section some factoryhouses for the use of the Indian department.

The troops continued to occupy it until May, 1823, whenit was evacuated by order of the government, and was leftin possession of the Indian agent at Chicago. In August,1828, it was again occupied by the troops, acting underthe orders of the Secretary of War, as one of the militaryposts of the United States. It was again evacuated by thetroops in May, 1831; but the government never gave uppossession of it, but left it in possession of one OliverNewberry, who authorized a certain George Dole to takeand keep it in repair; which he accordingly did. It wasagain occupied by the troops of the government in June,1832, under command of an officer of the army of theUnited States. It has been occupied by the troops, and wasgenerally known at Chicago to be so occupied, from thattime up to the commencement of the suit; and was at thetime of the trial still used for that purpose. When it wasevacuated in 1831, the quartermaster at the post, actingunder orders, sold the greater part of the movable propertyin and about the garrison belonging to the government,but sold none of of the buildings. In the year 1817, JohnB. Beaubean bought of one John Dean, who was an armycontractor at the post, a house built upon the land byDean, at the price of $1000: there was attached to thehouse an enclosure occupied by Dean as a garden andfield; Beaubean then took possession *510 of the houseand enclosure, and continued in possession, cultivating a

part of the enclosure every year, from 1817 to 1836. In1823, the factory houses on the land at said post were soldby order of the Secretary of the Treasury, which, after anintermediate sale, were bought by Beaubean at $500; whotook possession, and continued to occupy the same,together with a part of the quarter section of land, until thecommencement of this suit. Beaubean continued tooccupy the houses and enclosure, and to cultivate a part ofthe land, without interruption, from 1817 to thecommencement of this suit. The land was surveyed bygovernment in 1821. Since it was re-occupied by thetroops in 1832, and before the 1st of May, 1834, theUnited States built a lighthouse on part of the land, andhave kept at least twenty acres constantly enclosed andcultivated for the use of the garrison. In the year 1824, atthe instance of the then Indian agent at Chicago, whosuggested that it would be convenient for theaccommodation of the persons and protection of theproperty of the agency, the Secretary of War requested theCommissioner of the General Land Office to direct areservation to be made for the use of the Indiandepartment at that post; and in October, 1824, theCommissioner answered, saying that he had directed thesection now in question to be reserved from sale, formilitary purposes. In May, 1831, Beaubean made a claimfor pre-emption of the land in question at the land officein Palestine, which was rejected. In February, 1832, inanswer to a letter from Beaubean on the subject, theCommissioner of the General Land Office informed himthat the land in question was reserved for militarypurposes. The same information was given to others whomade application in behalf of Beaubean. In 1834, he madeclaim for a pre-emption in the same, at the Danville landoffice, which was also rejected. In 1835, Beaubeanapplied to the land office at Chicago, when his claim topre-emption was allowed; and he paid the purchasemoney, and procured the Register's certificate thereof.Wilcox went into and continued in possession, claimingno right of ownership; but as an officer of the UnitedStates only, in command of said post, acting under theorders of the Secretary of War, his superior officer, andthe United States. Beaubean sold and conveyed hisinterest to the lessor of the plaintiff.

**13 Upon this state of facts two questions arise which, inour opinion, embraces the whole merits of the case; andwhich we will now proceed to examine. The first is,whether under the facts of the case, and the law applyingto them, Beaubean acquired any title whatsoever to theland in question? The second is, whether if he did acquireany title at all, is it such an one as will enable the lesser ofthe plaintiff to recover in this action?


http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=780&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1800103297

Page 11


As to the first question. The ground of the claim is theright of Beaubean as a settler, to a pre-emption under theact of the 19th June, 1834, entitled, ‘An act to revive anact granting pre-emption rights to settlers on the publiclands, passed 29th of May, 1830.’ Now, as this act gives tothe persons claiming under it the benefits *511 andprivileges provided by the act of 1830, which it reviveswe must look to this last act in order to ascertain what arethose benefits and privileges, or, in other words, what isthe character of the pre-emption right thus claimed, andon what lands the claim is allowed to operate. Itauthorizes every settler or occupant of the public lands,under the circumstances therein stated, to enter with theRegister of the land office in which the land lies, by legalsubdivisions, a quantity of land not exceeding a quartersection subject to the following limitations andrestrictions:-‘That no entry or sale of any land shall bemade under the provisions of the act, which shall havebeen reserved for the use of the United States, or either ofthe several states, or which is reserved from sale by act ofCongress, or by order of the President, or which may havebeen appropriated for any purpose whatsoever.’

Before we proceed to inquire whether the land in questionfalls within the scope of any one of these prohibitions, itis necessary to examine a preliminary objection whichwas urged at the bar, which, if sustainable would renderthat inquiry wholly unavailing. It is this-that the acts ofCongress have given to the Registers and Receivers of theland offices the power of deciding upon claims to theright of pre-emption-that upon these questions they actjudicially-that no appeal having been given from theirdecision, it follows as a consequence that it is conclusiveand irreversible. This proposition is true in relation toevery tribunal acting judicially, whilst acting within thesphere of their jurisdiction, where no appellate tribunal iscreated; and even when there is such an appellate power,the judgment is conclusive when it only comescollaterally into question, so long as it is unreversed. Butdirectly the reverse of this is true in relation to thejudgment of any Court acting beyond the pale of itsauthority. The principle upon this subject is concisely andaccurately stated by this Court in the case of Elliott et al.vs. Peirsol et al., 1 Peters, 340, in these words: ‘where aCourt has jurisdiction, it has a right to decide everyquestion which occurs in the cause; and whether itsdecision be correct or otherwise, its judgment, untilreversed is regarded as binding in every other Court. Butif it act without authority, its judgments and orders areregarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply

void.’ Now to apply this. Even assuming that the decisionof the Register and Receiver, in the absence of frauds,would be conclusive as to the facts of the applicant thenbeing in possession, and his cultivation during thepreceding year, because these questions are directlysubmitted to them; yet if they undertake to grant pre-emptions in land in which the law declares they shall notbe granted, then they are acting upon a subject matterclearly not within their jurisdiction; as much so as if aCourt, whose jurisdiction was declared not to extendbeyond a given sum, should attempt to take cognizance ofa case beyond that sum.

**14 We now return to the inquiry whether the land inquestion falls within any of the prohibitions contained inthe act of Congress. Amongst others, lands, which mayhave been appropriated for any purpose *512 whatsoever,are exempt from liability to the right of pre-emption.Now, that the land in question has been appropriated inpoint of fact there can be no doubt, for the case agreedstates that it has been used from the year 1804 until andafter the institution of this suit, as well for the purpose ofa military post as for that of an Indian agency, with someoccasional interruption. Now this is appropriation, for thatis nothing more nor less than setting apart the thing forsome particular use. But it is said that this appropriationmust be made by authority of law. We think that theappropriation in this case, was made by authority of law.As far back as the year 1798, see act of May 3d of thatyear, vol. iii. Laws U. S. 46, an appropriation, was madefor the purpose, amongst other things, of enabling thePresident of the United States to erect fortifications insuch place or places as the public safety should, in hisopinion, require. By the act of 21st of April, 1806, vol. iv.Laws U. S., 64, the President was authorized to establishtrading houses at such posts and places, on the frontiers orin the Indian country on either or both sides of theMississippi river, as he should judge most convenient forcarrying on trade with the Indians. And by act of June 14,1809, he was authorized to erect such fortifications asmight, in his opinion, be necessary for the protection ofthe northern and western frontiers. We thus see that theestablishing trading houses with the Indian tribes, and theerection of fortifications in the west, are purposesauthorized by law; and that they were to be establishedand erected by the President. But the place in question isone at which a trading house has been established, and afortification or military post erected. It would not bedoubted, we suppose, by any one, that if Congress had bylaw directed the trading house to be established and themilitary post erected at Fort Dearborn, by name; that thiswould have been by authority of law. But instead of





Page 12


designating the place themselves, they left it to thediscretion of the President, which is precisely the samething in effect. Here then is an appropriation, not only forone but for two purposes, of the same place, by authorityof law. But there has been a third appropriation in thiscase by authority of law. Congress, by law, authorized theerection of a lighthouse at the mouth of Chicago river,which is within the limits of the land in question, andappropriated $5000 for its erection; and the case agreedstates that the lighthouse was built on part of the land indispute before the 1st of May, 1834. We think, then, thatthere has been an appropriation, not only in fact but inlaw.

There would be difficulty in deciding to what extent thisappropriation reached, if there were not materialsfurnished by the record which reduce it to precision. Atthe request of the Secretary of War, the Commissioner ofthe General Land Office in 1824, coloured and markedupon the map this very section, as reserved for militarypurposes, and directed it to be reserved from sale forthose purposes. We consider this, too, as having beendone by authority of law; for amongst other provisions inthe *513 act of 1830, all lands are exempted from pre-emption which are reserved from sale by order of thePresident. Now although the immediate agent in requiringthis reservation was the Secretary of War, yet we feeljustified in presuming that it was done by the approbationand direction of the President. The President speaks andacts through the heads of the several departments inrelation to subjects which appertain to their respectiveduties. Both military posts and Indian affairs, includingagencies, belong to the war department. Hence weconsider the act of the war department in requiring thisreservation to be made, as being in legal contemplationthe act of the President; and, consequently, that thereservation thus made was in legal effect, a reservationmade by order of the President, within the terms of the actof Congress.

**15 It is argued, however, that by the 4th section of theact of the 26th of June, 1834, the President was authorizedto cause to be sold all the lands in the north-east district ofthe state of Illinois, embracing the land in question withcertain reservations only, within which it is contended thatthe land in question is not included-that a proclamationwas issued directing various lands in said district to besold, and that amongst the lands so proclaimed was theland in question, unless excepted by the followingexception:-‘the lands reserved by law for the use ofschools, and for other purposes, will be excluded from the

sale.’-And that an extended plat was forwarded from thegeneral land office, marking and colouring certain landsto be reserved from sale; but that the land in question wasnot so marked or coloured, to be reserved from sale.

In the first place we remark, that we do not consider thislaw as applying at all to the case. That has relation to asale of lands in the manner prescribed by general law atpublic auction, whilst the claim to the land in question isfounded on a right of pre-emption, and governed bydifferent laws. The very act of 19th of June, 1834, underwhich this claim is made, was passed but one week beforethe one of which we are now speaking; thus showing thatthe provisions of the one were not intended to have anyeffect upon the subject matter on which the otheroperated. But we go further, and say, that whensoever atract of land shall have once been legally appropriated toany purpose, from that moment the land thus appropriatedbecomes severed from the mass of public lands; and thatno subsequent law, or proclamation, or sale, would beconstrued to embrace it, or to operate upon it; although noreservation were made of it.

The very act which we are now considering will furnishan illustration of this proposition. Thus, in that act there isexpressly reserved from sale the land, within that districtwhich had been granted to individuals, and the state ofIllinois. Now suppose this reservation had not been made,either in the law, proclamation, or sale, could it beconceived that if that land were sold at auction, the title ofthe purchaser would avail against the individuals or stateto whom the previous grants had been made? If, as wesuppose, this *514 question must be answered in thenegative, the same principle will apply to any land whichby authority of law shall have been severed from thegeneral mass. Let us for a moment consider to whatresults a contrary doctrine would lead; and the case beforeus will furnish a very striking illustration of them. If theparty claiming the pre-emption right here were tosucceed, together with the land, he would recover all theimprovements made upon it at the public expense. Thelighthouse and improvements alone, it seems by referenceto the act making an appropriation for its erection, cost$5000. How much was expended in the buildings at themilitary post we have no means of knowing, but probablya considerably larger sum. Thus, besides the landpurchased, for the sum of $94 61, he would recoverproperty, and that too property necessary for the militarydefence and commerce of the country, which cost theUnited States many thousands of dollars; and if there hadbeen expended upon it as many hundreds of thousands, as


Page 13


there have been thousands, the same result would follow.A principle leading to such startling consequences cannotin our opinion be a sound one. The right of preemptionwas a bounty extended to settlers and occupants of thepublic domain. We cannot suppose that this bounty wasdesigned to be extended at the sacrifice of publicestablishments, or great public interests. When the act of1830 was passed, Congress must have known of theauthority which had by former laws been given to thePresident, to establish trading houses and military posts.They must have known, for it was part of the publichistory of the country, that a military post had been longestablished at Fort Dearborn; and was at the date of thelaw occupied as such by the troops of the United States.They seem therefore to have been studious to uselanguage of so comprehensive a kind, in the exemptionfrom the right of pre-emption, as to embrace everydescription of reservation and appropriation which hadbeen previously made for public purposes. We havealready said that we think the-language in which theseexemptions are expressed is comprehensive enough toembrace the present case, so as to place it beyond thereach of the right of pre-emption.

**16 It is further argued that this case is embraced by thesecond section of the act of July 2d, 1836, entitled, ‘Anact to confirm the sales of public lands in certain cases.’That section is in these words: ‘And be it further enacted,that in all cases where an entry has been made under thepre-emption laws pursuant to instructions sent to theRegister and Receiver from the treasury department, andthe proceedings have been in all other respects fair andregular, such entries and sales are hereby confirmed; andpatents shall be issued thereon, as in other cases.’ Now thefirst remark we make upon this act is, that when theprevious alw had totally exempted certain lands from theright of pre-emption, if there were nothing else in thecase, it would be a very strong, not to say strainedconstruction of this section, to hold that Congress meantthereby by implication to repeal the former law in soimportant a provision. But we are *515 satisfied that therewere other cases to which it was intended to apply; wherethe instructions from the treasury department assumed, tosay the least, a doubtful if not an illegal power. As, forexample, the instructions of the 7th February and 17thOctober, 1831, by which entries were allowed to be madeand certificates issued under the act 1830; which was onlyin force for one year from its passage; after the expirationof the year, where the persons claiming had been deprivedof the benefits of the act of 1830, by reason of thetownship plats not having been furnished by the surveyor-general, and where, nevertheless, proofs of the claim had

been filed before the expiration of the year. To this case,and others similarly situated, the law may well apply;because without affecting the general principles of thesystem, they present instances in which innocent partieswould have been injured by the acts or omissions ofpublic officers, or by some other cause, as to which nofault was imputable to them. But, further, the entries to besaved by this section must have been pursuant toinstructions sent to the Register and Receiver from thetreasury department. Now it not only is not shown thatany instructions were so sent which would authorize thispre-emption; but, on the contrary, the agreed case showsthat the Register and Receiver at the Palestine land officerejected it in 1831; that the Commissioner of the GeneralLand Office, in the same year, in answer to a letter ofBeaubean complaining of that rejection, informed himthat the land was reserved for military purposes; and thatin July, 1834, after the passage of the pre-emption law ofthat year, he applied to the Register and Receiver of theDanville land office to prove a pre-emption to the sameland, who also rejected the application, and againinformed him that it was reserved for military purposes.Finally, by the express terms of this section, entries underthe pre-emption laws, to be protected by it must be in allother respects fair and regular. Now as the patents were tobe issued by the Commissioner of the General LandOffice, and as they were only to issue where theproceedings were fair and regular, that officer must ofnecessity be the judge of that fairness and regularity. Butas he refused to issue the patent, we know not whether heconsidered the proceedings in this case as being fair andregular. If they were not so, then they were not confirmed.We think therefore that the claimant can derive no aidfrom the act of 1836. Our conclusion then, in relation tothe first question is, that under the facts of the case, andthe law applying to them, Beaubean acquired no titlewhatsoever to the land in question.

**17 This being the case, it would not be absolutelynecessary to decide the second question; but as it arises inthe case, and has been fully argued, we will bestow uponit a very brief examination. That question is, whether if hehad acquired any title at all, it was such an one as wouldenable the lessor of the plaintiff below to recover in thisaction? Wilcox, the defendant in the original suit, did notclaim, or pretend to set up any right or title in himself. Heheld possession as an officer of the United States; and forthem, and under *516 their orders. This being the state ofthe case, the question which we are now examining isreally this, whether a person holding a register's certificatewithout a patent, can recover the land as against theUnited States.


Page 14


We think it unnecessary to go into a detailed examinationof the various acts of Congress, for the purpose ofshowing what we consider to be true in regard to thepublic lands, that with the exception of a few cases,nothing but a patent passes a perfect and consummatetitle. One class of cases to be excepted is where an act ofCongress grants land, as is sometimes done in words ofpresent grant. But we need not go into these exceptions.The general rule is what we have stated; and it applies aswell to pre-emptions as to other purchases of public lands.Thus it will appear by the very act of 1836 which we havebeen examining, that patents are to issue in pre-emptioncases. This then being the case, and this suit having beenin effect against the United States; to hold that the partycould recover as against them, would be to hold that aparty having an inchoate and imperfect title could recoveragainst the one in whom resided the perfect title. This, asa general proposition of law, unquestionably, cannot bemaintained.

But it is argued that a law of the state of Illinois declaresthat a Register's certificate shall be deemed evidence oftitle in the party sufficient to recover possession of thelands described in such certificate, in any action ofejectment or forcible entry and detainer; but the same lawdeclares that this shall be the case, unless a better legaland paramount title be exhibited for the same. Upon theconstruction of the law itself it would not apply to thiscase, because the United States not having parted with aconsummate legal title by issuing a patent, a better legaland paramount title was exhibited for the same. Wherethat was not the case, but the suit should be against anyperson not having the right of possession, or against atrespasser, these are the kinds of cases in which it wouldseem to us, by the proper construction of the act, that itwas intended to operate.

A much stronger ground however has been taken inargument. It has been said that the state of Illinois has aright to declare by law that a title derived from the UnitedStates, which by their laws is only inchoate and imperfect,shall be deemed as perfect a title as if a patent had issuedfrom the United States; and the construction of her ownCourts seems to give that effect to her statute. That statehas an-undoubted right to legislate as she may please inregard to the remedies to be prosecuted in her Courts, andto regulate the disposition of the property of her citizensby descent, devise, or alienation. But the property inquestion was a part of the public domain of the UnitedStates: Congress is invested by the Constitution with the

power of disposing of, and making needful rules andregulations respecting it. Congress has declared, as wehave said, by its legislation, that in such a case as this apatent is necessary to complete the title. But in this caseno patent has issued; and therefore by the laws of theUnited States the legal title has not passed, *517 butremains in the United States. Now if it were competentfor a state legislature to say, that notwithstanding this, thetitle shall be deemed to have passed; the effect of thiswould be, not that Congress had the power of disposing ofthe public lands, and prescribing the rules and regulationsconcerning that disposition, but that Illinois possessed it.That would be to make the laws of Illinois paramount tothose of Congress, in relation to a subject confided by theConstitution to Congress only. And the practical result inthis very case would be, by force of state legislation totake from the United States their own land, against theirown will, and against their own laws. We hold the trueprinciple to be this, that whenever the question in anyCourt, state or federal, is, whether a title to land whichhad once been the property of the United States haspassed, that question must be resolved by the laws of theUnited States; but that whenever, according to those laws,the title shall have passed, then that property, like all otherproperty in the state, is subject to state legislation; so faras that legislation is consistent with the admission that thetitle passed and vested according to the laws of the UnitedStates.

**18 It was urged at the bar, that the case of Ross vs. Doeon the demise of Barland and others, in this Court, 1Peters, 656, sustained the ground taken as to theobligatory force of the law of Illinois. A very briefexamination of that case will show that it falls greatlyshort of what it is supposed to decide. That was a conflictbetween two patentees, both claiming under the UnitedStates. The elder patent was founded upon a certificate ofthe Register of the land office west of Pearl river. Thejunior patent was issued on a certificate of the board ofCommissioners west of Pearl river. The Court belowinstructed the jury that the junior patent of the plaintiff inejectment, emanating upon a certificate for a donationclaim prior in date to the patent under which thedefendant claimed, would overreach the elder patent ofthe defendant, and in point of law, prevail against it. Itappears, that by the mode of proceeding in Mississippi,they look beyond the grant. This Court, remarking uponthat, said, that in so doing, and in applying their peculiarmode of proceeding to titles derived through and underthe laws of the United States, they violated no provisionsof any statute of the United States.







Page 15


But the Court then proceeded to say: ‘The importantquestion in the case is this; in applying its own principlesand practice in the action of ejectment, as might well bedone in this case, has the Court misconstrued the act ofCongress in deciding that the grant of the plaintiff,emanating upon the donation certificate of the foard ofCommissioners west of Pearl river set forth in the record,would overreach the defendant's grant, and should prevailagainst it in the action of ejectment.’ They then proceed toexamine the various acts of Congress upon the subject;declare their opinion to be, that the determination of theCommissioners was final; and come to the conclusion,that the Supreme Court of Mississippi had *518 notmisconstrued the acts of Congress, from which the rightsof the parties were derived; and, consequently, affirmedthe judgment. Thus it will appear, that in that case, whilstthe form and mode of proceeding by the law ofMississippi were recognised, yet the rights of the partiesdepended exclusively upon the construction of acts ofCongress; and that this Court thought that the Courtbelow had construed them correctly. This case, then,affords no countenance whatever to the argument foundedupon it.

Upon the whole, we are of opinion that the judgment ofthe Supreme Court of Illinois is erroneous: it is, therefore,reversed, with costs.

This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of therecord from the Supreme Court of the state of Illinois, andwas argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it isordered and adjudged by this Court, that the judgment ofthe said Supreme Court in this cause be, and the same ishereby, reversed and annulled, with costs; and that thiscause be, and the same is hereby, remanded to the saidSupreme Court, that such further proceedings may be hadtherein, in conformity to the opinion and judgment of thisCourt, and as to law and justice may appertain.

U.S.,1839Wilcox v. Jackson ex dem. McConnel38 U.S. 498, 13 Pet. 498, 1839 WL 4329 (U.S.Ill.), 10L.Ed. 264

END OF DOCUMENT


© 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.

Date of Printing: Aug 07, 2010

KEYCITE

Wilcox v. Jackson ex dem. McConnel, 38 U.S. 498, 13 Pet. 498, 1839 WL 4329, 10 L.Ed. 264 (U.S.Ill.,JanTerm 1839)

History

Direct History

1 Jackson ex dem. McConnell v. Wilcox, 1 Scam. 344, 2 Ill. 344, 1837 WL 2358 (Ill. Jun Term 1837)

Reversed by

=> 2 Wilcox v. Jackson ex dem. McConnel, 38 U.S. 498, 13 Pet. 498, 1839 WL 4329, 10 L.Ed. 264 (U.S.Ill. Jan Term 1839)

Negative Citing References (U.S.A.)

Distinguished by

3 Pierce v. Frace, 2 Wash. 81, 26 P. 192 (Wash. Feb 11, 1891) (NO. 64)

4 U.S. v. Winona & St. P.R. Co., 67 F. 948, 15 C.C.A. 96 (C.C.A.8 (Minn.) May 06, 1895) (NO. 564)


http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=2&SerialNum=1895144043&CaseCite=1839+WL+4329&CaseSerial=1800139652




http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=0&SerialNum=1800139652



KEYCITE

Wilcox v. Jackson ex dem. McConnel, 38 U.S. 498, 13 Pet. 498, 1839 WL 4329, 10 L.Ed. 264 (U.S.Ill., JanTerm 1839)





KEYCITE

Wilcox v. Jackson ex dem. McConnel, 38 U.S. 498, 13 Pet. 498, 1839 WL 4329, 10 L.Ed. 264 (U.S.Ill. JanTerm 1839)

Citing References

Negative Cases (U.S.A.)

Distinguished by

1 U.S. v. Winona & St. P.R. Co., 67 F. 948, 956, 15 C.C.A. 96, 96 (C.C.A.8 (Minn.) May 06, 1895) (NO. 564)

2 Pierce v. Frace, 26 P. 192, 195+, 2 Wash. 81, 94+ (Wash. Feb 11, 1891) (NO. 64) "

Positive Cases (U.S.A.)

Examined

3 Home on the Range v. AT&T Corp., 386 F.Supp.2d 999, 1003+ (S.D.Ind. Sep 07, 2005) (NO. 1:99-ML-9313-DFH-TAB, MDL 1313) "

Discussed

4 Oregon ex rel. State Land Bd. v. Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co., 97 S.Ct. 582, 587+, 429 U.S. 363, 371+, 50 L.Ed.2d 550, 550+, 7 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,137, 20137+ (U.S.Or. Jan 12, 1977) (NO. 75-567, 75-577)

5 U.S. v. Lee, 1 S.Ct. 240, 253+, 106 U.S. 196, 211+, 16 Otto 196, 196+, 27 L.Ed. 171, 171+ (U.S.Va. Dec 04, 1882)

6 U.S. v. Farden, 1878 WL 18340, *4+, 99 U.S. 10, 15+, 9 Otto 10, 10+, 25 L.Ed. 267, 267+ (U.S.Ct.Cl. Oct Term 1878)

7 Foley v. Harrison, 1853 WL 7635, *6+, 56 U.S. 433, 439+, 15 How. 433, 433+, 14 L.Ed. 761, 761+ (U.S.La. Dec Term 1853)

8 Lytle v. Arkansas, 1850 WL 6924, *5+, 50 U.S. 314, 320+, 9 How. 314, 314+, 13 L.Ed. 153, 153+ (U.S.Ark. Jan Term 1850)

9 U.S. v. Fitzgerald, 1841 WL 5021, *4+, 40 U.S. 407, 414+, 15 Pet. 407, 407+, 10 L.Ed. 785, 785+ (U.S.La. Jan Term 1841)

10 U.S. v. Tichenor, 12 F. 415, 421+, 8 Sawy. 142, 142+ (C.C.D.Or. Jun 05, 1882)

11 Law v. U.S., 11 F.3d 1061, 1066+ (Fed.Cir. Dec 13, 1993) (NO. 92-5165)

12 Wilbur v. U.S. ex rel. Barton, 46 F.2d 217, 219+, 60 App.D.C. 11, 13+ (App.D.C. Dec 01, 1930) (NO. 5241) "

13 Yunis v. U.S., 118 F.Supp.2d 1024, 1031+ (C.D.Cal. Jul 24, 2000) (NO. CV 97-7863 RAP) "

14 Lee v. Kaufman, 15 F.Cas. 162, 186+, 3 Hughes 36, 36+, 17 Alb. L.J. 237, 237+, 24 Int.Rev.Rec. 90, 90+, No. 8191, 8191+ (C.C.E.D.Va. Mar 15, 1879)

15 Law v. U.S., 26 Cl.Ct. 382, 389+ (Cl.Ct. Jun 30, 1992) (NO. 91-1478C) "


















16 Doll v. Meador, 16 Cal. 295, 305+, 1860 WL 952, *7+ (Cal. Oct Term 1860)

17 Waterman v. Smith, 13 Cal. 373, 386+, 1859 WL 1012, *9+ (Cal. Apr Term 1859)

18 Fremont County v. Burlington & M.R.R. Co., 22 Iowa 91, 95+, 1867 WL 65, *2+ (Iowa Apr 12, 1867)

19 Albritton v. Shaw, 87 So. 32, 35+, 148 La. 427, 434+ (La. Nov 12, 1920) (NO. 23927)

20 Knox v. Pulliam, 14 La.Ann. 123, 127+, 1859 WL 6034, *7+ (La. Feb 1859)

21 Foley v. Harrison, 5 La.Ann. 75, 78+, 1850 WL 114, *2+ (La. Jan 1850)

22 Dreux v. Kennedy, 12 Rob. (LA) 489, 497+, 1846 WL 1352, *6+ (La. Jan 1846) "

23 Hannibal & St. J.R. Co. v. Smith, 41 Mo. 310, 325+, 1867 WL 73, *9+ (Mo. Aug Term 1867) "

24 Kissell v. Board, etc., of St. Louis Public Schools, 16 Mo. 553, 563+, 1852 WL 16, *8+ (Mo. Oct Term 1852)

25 Coombs' Lessee v. Lane, 1854 WL 65, *8+, 4 Ohio St. 112, 125+ (Ohio Dec Term 1854) "

26 City of Brownsville v. Basse, 36 Tex. 461, 461+, 1871 WL 145, *1+ (Tex. 1871) "

27 Spaulding v. Martin, 11 Wis. 262, 269+, 1860 WL 4594, *6+ (Wis. Jun 04, 1860) "

Cited

28 California ex rel. State Lands Com'n v. U. S., 102 S.Ct. 2432, 2438, 457 U.S. 273, 281, 73 L.Ed.2d 1, 1 (U.S. Jun 18, 1982) (NO. 89, ORIGINAL)

29 Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 99 S.Ct. 2529, 2539, 442 U.S. 653, 670, 61 L.Ed.2d 153, 153 (U.S.Iowa Jun 20, 1979) (NO. 78-160, 78-161)

30 Wallis v. Pan Am. Petroleum Corp., 86 S.Ct. 1301, 1305, 384 U.S. 63, 71, 16 L.Ed.2d 369, 369 (U.S.La. Apr 25, 1966) (NO. 341)

31 U.S. v. O'Donnell, 58 S.Ct. 708, 714, 303 U.S. 501, 510, 82 L.Ed. 980, 980 (U.S.Cal. Mar 28, 1938) (NO. 487)

32 U.S. v. State of Oregon, 55 S.Ct. 610, 621, 295 U.S. 1, 28, 79 L.Ed. 1267, 1267, 1935 A.M.C. 594, 594 (U.S.Or. Apr 01, 1935) (NO. 13)

33 Myers v. U.S., 47 S.Ct. 21, 25, 272 U.S. 52, 117, 71 L.Ed. 160, 160 (U.S.Ct.Cl. Oct 25, 1926) (NO. 2)

34 U.S. v. State of Minnesota, 46 S.Ct. 298, 305, 270 U.S. 181, 206, 70 L.Ed. 539, 539 (U.S.Minn. Mar 01, 1926) (NO. 17, ORIGINAL)

35 U.S. ex rel. French v. Weeks, 42 S.Ct. 505, 508, 259 U.S. 326, 334, 66 L.Ed. 965, 965 (U.S.Dist.Col.May 29, 1922) (NO. 724)

36 State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas, 42 S.Ct. 406, 417, 258 U.S. 574, 602, 66 L.Ed. 771, 771 (U.S.Okla. May 01, 1922) (NO. 20)

37 Payne v. Central Pac. Ry. Co., 41 S.Ct. 314, 317, 255 U.S. 228, 238, 65 L.Ed. 598, 598 (U.S.Dist.Col. Feb 28, 1921) (NO. 17)

38 Ruddy v. Rossi, 39 S.Ct. 46, 48+, 248 U.S. 104, 110+, 63 L.Ed. 148, 148+, 8 A.L.R. 843, 843+ (U.S.Idaho Dec 09, 1918) (NO. 17) " (in dissent)

39 Salt Lake Inv. Co. v. Oregon Short Line R. Co., 38 S.Ct. 348, 349, 246 U.S. 446, 447, 62 L.Ed. 823, 823 (U.S.Utah Apr 15, 1918) (NO. 29)

40 Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Wismer, 38 S.Ct. 240, 242, 246 U.S. 283, 288, 62 L.Ed. 716, 716 (U.S.Wash. Mar 04, 1918) (NO. 152)

41 Utah Power & Light Co. v. U.S., 37 S.Ct. 387, 389, 243 U.S. 389, 405, 61 L.Ed. 791, 791 (U.S.Utah Mar 19, 1917) (NO. 202, 204, 206, 203, 205, 207)




























42 U.S. v. Morrison, 36 S.Ct. 326, 334+, 240 U.S. 192, 212+, 60 L.Ed. 599, 599+ (U.S.Or. Feb 21, 1916) (NO. 138)

43 U.S. v. Midwest Oil Co., 35 S.Ct. 309, 321, 236 U.S. 459, 492, 59 L.Ed. 673, 673 (U.S.Wyo. Feb 23,1915) (NO. 278) (in dissent)

44 Buchser v. Buchser, 34 S.Ct. 46, 46, 231 U.S. 157, 161, 58 L.Ed. 166, 166 (U.S.Wash. Nov 17, 1913) (NO. 641) "

45 U.S. v. Grimaud, 31 S.Ct. 480, 485, 220 U.S. 506, 521, 55 L.Ed. 563, 563 (U.S.Cal. May 01, 1911) (NO. 241, 242)

46 U.S. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 31 S.Ct. 7, 11, 218 U.S. 233, 243, 54 L.Ed. 1015, 1015 (U.S.Iowa Oct 17, 1910) (NO. 11)

47 Northern Lumber Co. v. O'Brien, 27 S.Ct. 249, 251, 204 U.S. 190, 198, 51 L.Ed. 438, 438 (U.S.Minn. Jan 14, 1907) (NO. 121)

48 McCune v. Essig, 26 S.Ct. 78, 80, 199 U.S. 382, 390, 50 L.Ed. 237, 237 (U.S.Wash. Nov 27, 1905) (NO. 61)

49 Scott v. Carew, 25 S.Ct. 193, 196+, 196 U.S. 100, 109+, 49 L.Ed. 403, 403+ (U.S.Fla. Jan 03, 1905) (NO. 52)

50 Bockfinger v. Foster, 23 S.Ct. 836, 839+, 190 U.S. 116, 125+, 47 L.Ed. 975, 975+ (U.S.Okla. Jun 01,1903) (NO. 175)

51 Kean v. Calumet Canal & Improvement Co., 23 S.Ct. 651, 661+, 190 U.S. 452, 484+, 47 L.Ed. 1134,1134+ (U.S.Ind. May 04, 1903) (NO. 8) (in dissent)

52 Clark v. Herington, 22 S.Ct. 872, 874, 186 U.S. 206, 210, 46 L.Ed. 1128, 1128 (U.S.Kan. Jun 02, 1902) (NO. 223)

53 Tindal v. Wesley, 17 S.Ct. 770, 774, 167 U.S. 204, 214, 42 L.Ed. 137, 137 (U.S.S.C. May 10, 1897) (NO. 231)

54 Carter v. Ruddy, 17 S.Ct. 640, 641+, 166 U.S. 493, 495+, 41 L.Ed. 1090, 1090+ (U.S.Idaho Apr 19, 1897) (NO. 250)

55 Gonzales v. French, 17 S.Ct. 102, 105, 164 U.S. 338, 345, 41 L.Ed. 458, 458 (U.S.Ariz. Nov 30, 1896) (NO. 34)

56 Shiver v. U.S., 16 S.Ct. 54, 55+, 159 U.S. 491, 494+, 40 L.Ed. 231, 231+ (U.S.Ala. Nov 11, 1895) (NO. 548) "

57 Orchard v. Alexander, 15 S.Ct. 635, 637, 157 U.S. 372, 377, 39 L.Ed. 737, 737 (U.S.Wash. Apr 01, 1895) (NO. 192, 193)

58 Wood v. Beach, 15 S.Ct. 410, 411, 156 U.S. 548, 550, 39 L.Ed. 528, 528 (U.S.Kan. Mar 04, 1895) (NO. 143)

59 Lake Superior Ship Canal, Railway & Iron Co. v. Cunningham, 15 S.Ct. 103, 110, 155 U.S. 354, 373, 39 L.Ed. 183, 183 (U.S.Mich. Dec 10, 1894) (NO. 49)

60 Hegler v. Faulkner, 14 S.Ct. 779, 781, 153 U.S. 109, 117, 38 L.Ed. 653, 653 (U.S.Neb. Apr 23, 1894)(NO. 166)

61 Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Roberts, 14 S.Ct. 496, 498, 152 U.S. 114, 119, 38 L.Ed. 377, 377 (U.S.Kan. Mar 05, 1894) (NO. 230)

62 Cameron v. U. S., 13 S.Ct. 595, 599, 148 U.S. 301, 309, 37 L.Ed. 459, 459 (U.S.Ariz. Mar 27, 1893) (NO. 42)

63 Monroe Cattle Co. v. Becker, 13 S.Ct. 217, 221, 147 U.S. 47, 57, 37 L.Ed. 72, 72 (U.S.Tex. Jan 03, 1893) (NO. 87)

64 Bardon v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 12 S.Ct. 856, 857+, 145 U.S. 535, 539+, 36 L.Ed. 806, 806+ (U.S.Wis. May 16, 1892)

























65 Hastings & D.R. Co. v. Whitney, 10 S.Ct. 112, 114, 132 U.S. 357, 360, 33 L.Ed. 363, 363 (U.S.Minn. Dec 09, 1889)

66 Doolan v. Carr, 8 S.Ct. 1228, 1231+, 125 U.S. 618, 625+, 31 L.Ed. 844, 844+ (U.S.Cal. Nov 21, 1887)

67 Runkle v. U.S., 7 S.Ct. 1141, 1147, 122 U.S. 543, 557, 30 L.Ed. 1167, 1167 (U.S.Ct.Cl. May 27, 1887)

68 McElrath v. U.S., 1880 WL 18929, *5, 102 U.S. 426, 426, 12 Otto 426, 426, 26 L.Ed. 189, 189 (U.S.Ct.Cl. Oct Term 1880)

69 Wolsey v. Chapman, 1879 WL 16626, *12+, 101 U.S. 755, 769+, 11 Otto 755, 755+, 25 L.Ed. 915, 915+ (U.S.Iowa Oct Term 1879) "

70 Ryan v. Central Pac. R. Co., 1878 WL 18273, *3, 99 U.S. 382, 385, 9 Otto 382, 382, 25 L.Ed. 305, 305 (U.S.Cal. Oct Term 1878)

71 Central Colorado Imp Co v. Board of County Com'rs of Pueblo County, 1877 WL 18544, *4, 95 U.S.259, 263, 5 Otto 259, 259, 24 L.Ed. 495, 495 (U.S.Colo. Oct Term 1877)

72 Beecher v. Wetherby, 1877 WL 18561, *3, 95 U.S. 517, 520, 5 Otto 517, 517, 24 L.Ed. 440, 440 (U.S.Wis. Oct Term 1877)

73 Leavenworth, L. & G.R. Co. v. U.S., 1875 WL 17795, *5+, 92 U.S. 733, 739+, 2 Otto 733, 733+, 23 L.Ed. 634, 634+ (U.S.Kan. Oct Term 1875)

74 The Confiscation Cases, 1873 WL 15970, *11, 87 U.S. 92, 109, 22 L.Ed. 320, 320, 20 Wall. 92, 92 (U.S.La. Oct Term 1873)

75 Branson v. Wirth, 1872 WL 15282, *5, 84 U.S. 32, 37, 21 L.Ed. 566, 566, 17 Wall. 32, 32 (U.S.Ill. Dec Term 1872)

76 Gibson v. Chouteau, 1871 WL 14843, *9, 80 U.S. 92, 104, 20 L.Ed. 534, 534, 13 Wall. 92, 92 (U.S.Mo. Dec Term 1871)

77 Johnson v. Towsley, 80 U.S. 72, 77, 2 Neb. 484, 484, 1871 WL 14804, *5, 20 L.Ed. 485, 485, 13 Wall. 72, 72 (U.S.Neb. Dec Term 1871)

78 Mumford v. Wardwell, 1867 WL 11188, *5, 73 U.S. 423, 430, 18 L.Ed. 756, 756, 6 Wall. 423, 423 (U.S.Cal. Dec Term 1867)

79 State of Minnesota v. Bachelder, 1863 WL 6624, *4, 68 U.S. 109, 112, 17 L.Ed. 551, 551, 1 Wall. 109, 109 (U.S.Minn. Dec Term 1863) "

80 Ohio & M.R. Co. v. Wheeler, 1861 WL 7691, *8, 66 U.S. 286, 295, 1 Black 286, 286, 17 L.Ed. 130, 130 (U.S.Ind. Dec Term 1861)

81 Hale v. Gaines, 1859 WL 10640, *4+, 63 U.S. 144, 149+, 22 How. 144, 144+, 16 L.Ed. 264, 264+ (U.S.Ark. Dec Term 1859)

82 Hooper v. Scheimer, 1859 WL 10573, *7+, 64 U.S. 235, 243+, 23 How. 235, 235+, 16 L.Ed. 452, 452+ (U.S.Ark. Dec Term 1859)

83 French's Lessee v. Spencer, 1858 WL 9384, *3+, 62 U.S. 228, 230+, 21 How. 228, 228+, 16 L.Ed. 97, 97+ (U.S.Ind. Dec Term 1858)

84 Dynes v. Hoover, 1857 WL 8596, *10, 61 U.S. 65, 76, 20 How. 65, 65, 15 L.Ed. 838, 838 (U.S.Dist.Col. Dec Term 1857) "

85 Covington Drawbridge Co. v. Shepherd, 1857 WL 8583, *4, 61 U.S. 227, 231, 20 How. 227, 227, 15 L.Ed. 896, 896 (U.S.Ind. Dec Term 1857)

86 Irvine v. Marshall, 1857 WL 8560, *9, 61 U.S. 558, 570, 20 How. 558, 558, 15 L.Ed. 994, 994 (U.S.Minn. Dec Term 1857) " (in dissent)

87 Barnard v. Ashley, 1855 WL 8203, *2+, 59 U.S. 43, 43+, 18 How. 43, 43+, 15 L.Ed. 285, 285+ (U.S.N.Y. Dec Term 1855)

























88 Dodge v. Woolsey, 1855 WL 8235, *33, 59 U.S. 331, 371, 18 How. 331, 331, 15 L.Ed. 401, 401, 3 Ohio F.Dec. 300, 300, 4 A.F.T.R. 4528, 4528 (U.S.Ohio Dec Term 1855) (in dissent)

89 Haydel v. Dufresne, 1854 WL 7481, *1, 58 U.S. 23, 24, 17 How. 23, 23, 15 L.Ed. 115, 115 (U.S.La. Dec Term 1854)

90 Marshall v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 1853 WL 7690, *13, 57 U.S. 314, 328, 16 How. 314, 314, 14 L.Ed. 953, 953 (U.S.Md. Dec Term 1853)

91 Board of Trustees of Vincennes University v. State of Indiana, 1852 WL 6733, *2+, 55 U.S. 268, 269+, 14 How. 268, 268+, 14 L.Ed. 416, 416+ (U.S.Ind. Dec Term 1852) "

92 Campbell v. Doe ex dem. Trustees and Treasurer of Original Surveyed Township No. 1 in Range No.19, 1851 WL 6682, *2+, 54 U.S. 244, 246+, 13 How. 244, 244+, 14 L.Ed. 130, 130+, 3 Ohio F.Dec. 43, 43+ (U.S.Ohio Dec Term 1851)

93 U.S. v. Hughes, 1850 WL 6828, *7, 52 U.S. 552, 559, 11 How. 552, 552, 13 L.Ed. 809, 809 (U.S.La. Dec Term 1850)

94 League v. De Young, 1850 WL 6836, *4, 52 U.S. 185, 190, 11 How. 185, 185, 13 L.Ed. 657, 657 (U.S.Tex. Dec Term 1850)

95 Doe ex dem. Barbarie v. Eslava, 1850 WL 6908, *14+, 50 U.S. 421, 437+, 9 How. 421, 421+, 13 L.Ed. 200, 200+ (U.S.Ala. Jan Term 1850)

96 Surgett v. Lapice, 1850 WL 6821, *15, 49 U.S. 48, 63, 8 How. 48, 48, 12 L.Ed. 982, 982 (U.S.La. Jan Term 1850)

97 Menard's Heirs v. Massey, 1850 WL 6840, *7, 49 U.S. 293, 299, 8 How. 293, 293, 12 L.Ed. 1085, 1085 (U.S.Mo. Jan Term 1850)

98 Williamson v. Berry, 1850 WL 6852, *21+, 49 U.S. 495, 518+, 8 How. 495, 495+, 12 L.Ed. 1170, 1170+ (U.S.N.Y. Jan Term 1850)

99 U.S. v. City of Chicago, 1849 WL 6424, *1+, 48 U.S. 185, 185+, 7 How. 185, 185+, 12 L.Ed. 660, 660+ (U.S.Ill. Jan Term 1849)

100 Scott v. Jones, 1847 WL 5967, *11, 46 U.S. 343, 354, 5 How. 343, 343, 12 L.Ed. 181, 181 (U.S.Mich. Jan Term 1847)

101 U.S. v. Boyd, 1847 WL 5985, *19, 46 U.S. 29, 47, 5 How. 29, 29, 12 L.Ed. 36, 36 (U.S.Miss. Jan Term 1847)

102 Brown's Lessee v. Clements, 1845 WL 5992, *8+, 44 U.S. 650, 657+, 3 How. 650, 650+, 11 L.Ed. 767, 767+ (U.S.Ala. Jan Term 1845)

103 U.S. v. Gear, 1845 WL 6028, *10, 44 U.S. 120, 132, 3 How. 120, 120, 11 L.Ed. 523, 523 (U.S.Ill. JanTerm 1845)

104 Carroll v. Safford, 1845 WL 5994, *8+, 44 U.S. 441, 448+, 3 How. 441, 441+, 11 L.Ed. 671, 671+ (U.S.Mich. Jan Term 1845) "

105 Hickey's Lessee v. Stewart, 1845 WL 6019, *13, 44 U.S. 750, 763, 3 How. 750, 750, 11 L.Ed. 814, 814 (U.S.Miss. Jan Term 1845)

106 Stoddard v. Chambers, 1844 WL 5958, *23+, 43 U.S. 284, 312+, 2 How. 284, 284+, 11 L.Ed. 269, 269+ (U.S.Mo. Jan Term 1844)

107 City of Mobile v. Eslava, 1842 WL 5749, *12, 41 U.S. 234, 250, 16 Pet. 234, 234, 10 L.Ed. 948, 948(U.S.Ala. Jan Term 1842)

108 U.S. v. Gratiot, 1840 WL 4638, *5, 39 U.S. 526, 531, 14 Pet. 526, 526, 10 L.Ed. 573, 573 (U.S.Ill. Jan Term 1840)

109 Head v. Porter, 48 F. 481, 482+ (C.C.D.Mass. Dec 03, 1891)

110 U.S. v. Cutter, 25 F.Cas. 740, 743+, 2 Curt.C.C. 617, 617+, No. 14,911, 14911+ (C.C.D.N.H. Oct Term 1856)

























111 U S v. Ames, 24 F.Cas. 784, 787, 1 Woodb. & M. 76, 76, 9 Law Rep. 295, 295, No. 14,441, 14441 (C.C.D.Mass. Oct Term 1845)

112 Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Quereau, 289 F. 767, 772 (C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) Mar 19, 1923) (NO. 192)

113 Maresca v. U.S., 277 F. 727, 735 (C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) Sep 27, 1921) (NO. 190)

114 Motherwell v. U S ex rel Alexandroff, 107 F. 437, 452, 48 C.C.A. 97, 97 (C.C.A.3 (Pa.) Feb 25, 1901) (NO. 22) (in dissent)

115 Updegraff v. Talbott, 221 F.2d 342, 346 (4th Cir.(Va.) Apr 12, 1955) (NO. 6912)

116 McKenna v. Wallis, 344 F.2d 432, 433 (5th Cir.(La.) Jan 21, 1964) (NO. 19631) "

117 Porter v. Coble, 246 F. 244, 249, 158 C.C.A. 404, 404 (C.C.A.8 (Neb.) Nov 19, 1917) (NO. 4909)

118 U.S. v. Utah Power & Light Co., 209 F. 554, 557+, 126 C.C.A. 376, 376+ (C.C.A.8 (Utah) Nov 14, 1913) (NO. 3992)

119 Rainbow v. Young, 161 F. 835, 838, 88 C.C.A. 653, 653 (C.C.A.8 (Neb.) Jun 08, 1908) (NO. 2642)

120 Stearns v. U.S., 152 F. 900, 903, 82 C.C.A. 48, 48 (C.C.A.8 (Minn.) Feb 01, 1907) (NO. 2411)

121 Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Douglas Co., 31 F. 540, 540 (C.C.D.Neb. 1887)

122 Seymour v. Sanders, 21 F.Cas. 1133, 1135, 3 Dill. 437, 437, No. 12,690, 12690 (C.C.D.Minn. 1874)

123 Larriviere v. Madegan, 14 F.Cas. 1160, 1161, 1 Dill. 455, 455, No. 8096, 8096 (C.C.D.Minn. 1870)

124 Bernard v. Ashley, 3 F.Cas. 272, 274+, Hempst. 665, 665+, No. 1346, 1346+ (C.C.D.Ark. Apr Term 1853)

125 Arnold v. Morton, 529 F.2d 1101, 1105 (9th Cir.(Alaska) Jan 23, 1976) (NO. 74-2218)

126 Mason v. U.S., 218 F.2d 375, 380 (9th Cir.(Cal.) Dec 09, 1954) (NO. 14286)

127 Osborne v. U.S., 145 F.2d 892, 894+ (C.C.A.9 (Ariz.) Nov 24, 1944) (NO. 10755)

128 U.S. v. Walker River Irr. Dist., 104 F.2d 334, 338 (C.C.A.9 (Nev.) Jun 05, 1939) (NO. 8779)

129 Bourdieu v. Pacific Western Oil Co., 80 F.2d 774, 778 (C.C.A.9 (Cal.) Dec 20, 1935) (NO. 7808)

130 Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. of Idaho v. U.S., 218 F. 288, 295+, 134 C.C.A. 84, 84+ (C.C.A.9 (Idaho) Nov 02, 1914) (NO. 2351)

131 U. S. v. Fickett, 205 F. 134, 137+, 123 C.C.A. 366, 366+ (C.C.A.9 (Ariz.) May 05, 1913) (NO. 2127)

132 Buchser v. Morss, 202 F. 854, 856, 121 C.C.A. 212, 212 (C.C.A.9 (Wash.) Feb 03, 1913) (NO. 2151)"

133 Perovich v. Perry, 167 F. 789, 791, 93 C.C.A. 209, 209, 3 Alaska Fed. 279, 282 (C.C.A.9 (Alaska) Feb 01, 1909) (NO. 1567)

134 Columbia Valley R. Co. v. Portland & S. Ry. Co., 162 F. 603, 605, 89 C.C.A. 361, 361 (C.C.A.9 (Wash.) May 04, 1908) (NO. 1500) "

135 Shannon v. U.S., 160 F. 870, 873, 88 C.C.A. 52, 52 (C.C.A.9 (Mont.) Feb 03, 1908) (NO. 1489)

136 De Laittre v. Board of Com'rs, 149 F. 800, 804 (C.C.D.Or. Jan 14, 1907) (NO. 3104) "

137 Winters v. U.S., 143 F. 740, 748+, 74 C.C.A. 666, 666+ (C.C.A.9 (Mont.) Feb 05, 1906) (NO. 1243)

138 U.S. v. Tully, 140 F. 899, 901+ (C.C.D.Mont. Sep 23, 1905)

139 Gibson v. Anderson, 131 F. 39, 42, 65 C.C.A. 277, 277 (C.C.A.9 (Wash.) May 03, 1904)

140 U.S. v. Blendaur, 128 F. 910, 913+, 63 C.C.A. 636, 636+ (C.C.A.9 (Mont.) Mar 01, 1904) (NO. 973)

141 McCune v. Essig, 122 F. 588, 590, 59 C.C.A. 429, 429 (C.C.A.9 (Wash.) May 04, 1903) (NO. 924) "

142 McCune v. Essig, 118 F. 273, 275+ (C.C.D.Wash. Oct 29, 1902) (NO. 954) "

143 U.S. v. Tygh Valley Land & Live-Stock Co., 76 F. 693, 694 (C.C.D.Or. Sep 26, 1896)

144 U.S. v. Oregon & C.R. Co., 69 F. 899, 901 (C.C.D.Or. Sep 09, 1895) (NO. 1982) "

145 Stimson Land Co. v. Rawson, 62 F. 426, 430 (C.C.D.Wash. Jul 05, 1894) (NO. 156)





































146 Spokane Falls & N. Ry. Co. v. Ziegler, 61 F. 392, 394, 9 C.C.A. 548, 548 (C.C.A.9 (Wash.) Apr 12, 1894) (NO. 81)

147 Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Maclay, 61 F. 554, 556, 9 C.C.A. 609, 609 (C.C.A.9 (Mont.) Apr 02, 1894) (NO. 88)

148 Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Cannon, 54 F. 252, 255+, 4 C.C.A. 303, 303+ (C.C.A.9 (Mont.) Jan 23, 1893) (NO. 52)

149 Hershberger v. Blewett, 55 F. 170, 180 (C.C.D.Wash. Dec 07, 1892) (NO. 25)

150 Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Sanders, 49 F. 129, 137, 1 C.C.A. 192, 192 (C.C.A.9 (Mont.) Jan 25, 1892)

151 U.S. v. McGraw, 12 F. 449, 452, 8 Sawy. 156, 156 (C.C.D.Or. Jun 1882)

152 Pittsburg & Midway Coal Min. Co. v. Yazzie, 909 F.2d 1387, 1402 (10th Cir.(N.M.) May 30, 1990) (NO. 88-2413, 88-8071)

153 Smith v. U.S., 593 F.2d 982, 984 (10th Cir.(Okla.) Mar 13, 1979) (NO. 77-1214, 77-1215)

154 Kansas Pac. Ry. Co. v. Atchison, T. & S.F.R. Co., 13 F. 106, 107, 2 McCrary 550, 550 (C.C.D.Kan. Jan 1881)

155 Mobil Oil Corp. v. Coastal Petroleum Co., 671 F.2d 419, 425 (11th Cir.(Fla.) Mar 04, 1982) (NO. 81-5533, 81-5812)

156 Hash v. U.S., 403 F.3d 1308, 1315, 35 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,072, 20072 (Fed.Cir.(Idaho) Apr 04, 2005) (NO. 03-1395)

157 Bendix Aviation Corp., Bendix Radio Division v. F.C.C., 272 F.2d 533, 533, 32 P.U.R.3d 435, 435, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 304, 304 (D.C.Cir. Nov 13, 1959) (NO. 159035, 14650, 14693)

158 West v. Lyders, 36 F.2d 108, 110+, 59 App.D.C. 122, 124+ (App.D.C. Nov 04, 1929) (NO. 4783) "

159 Weeks v. U.S. ex rel. Creary, 277 F. 594, 599, 51 App.D.C. 195, 200 (App.D.C. Jan 03, 1922) (NO. 3693)

160 Hitchcock v. U.S. ex rel. Bigboy, 22 App.D.C. 275, 280, 1903 WL 18623, *3 (App.D.C. Jun 25, 1903) (NO. 1294)

161 U.S. ex rel. Wedderburn v. Bliss, 12 App.D.C. 485, 491, 1898 WL 15613, *4 (App.D.C. Apr 04, 1898) (NO. 758)

162 Twin City Nat. Bank of New Brighton v. Nebeker, 3 App.D.C. 190, 193, 1894 WL 11849, *3 (App.D.C. Apr 16, 1894) (NO. 250)

163 U.S. v. Turner, 54 F. 228, 229 (C.C.S.D.Ala. Dec 27, 1892)

164 U.S. v. Garretson, 42 F. 22, 24 (C.C.S.D.Ala. Mar 20, 1890) "

165 U.S. v. Schaub, 103 F.Supp. 873, 873, 13 Alaska 640, 640 (D.Alaska Apr 03, 1952) (NO. 3174)

166 U. S. v. 348.62 Acres of Land in Anchorage Recording Dist., 1943 WL 1239, *6+, 10 Alaska 351, 363+ (D.Alaska Terr. 1943) "

167 Grosvold v. Whelpley, 1916 WL 301, *2, 5 Alaska 529, 532 (D.Alaska Terr. Aug 12, 1916) (NO. 804) "

168 Gavigan v. Crary, 1905 WL 334, *4, 2 Alaska 370, 380 (D.Alaska Feb 11, 1905) (NO. 75)

169 Crawford v. Burr, 1903 WL 305, *1, 2 Alaska 33, 35 (D.Alaska Feb 16, 1903) (NO. 5)

170 Behrends v. Goldsteen, 1902 WL 559, *4, 1 Alaska 518, 524 (D.Alaska Mar 29, 1902) (NO. 931)

171 U.S. v. Payne, 8 F. 883, 893+, 2 McCrary 289, 289+ (W.D.Ark. 1881)

172 Secretary of Housing and Urban Dev. v. Sky Meadow Asso., 117 F.Supp.2d 970, 977+ (C.D.Cal. Jul 24, 2000) (NO. CV 98-1842 RAP) "

173 Southern Pac. R. Co. v. Ambler Grain & Milling Co., 57 F.2d 536, 539 (S.D.Cal. Mar 18, 1932) (NO.Q-46-C)

174 U.S. v. Watkins, 22 F.2d 437, 440 (N.D.Cal. Oct 18, 1927) (NO. 18893)































175 Rosenberg Bros. & Co. v. U.S. Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp., 295 F. 372, 377+, 1924 A.M.C. 170+ (N.D.Cal. Dec 26, 1923) (NO. 17692, 17693)

176 Apis v. U.S., 88 F. 931, 940 (S.D.Cal. Feb 21, 1898) (NO. 846)

177 Hibberd v. Slack, 84 F. 571, 575 (C.C.S.D.Cal. Dec 06, 1897) (NO. 696)

178 In re Neagle, 39 F. 833, 860, 14 Sawy. 232, 232, 5 L.R.A. 78, 78 (C.C.N.D.Cal. Sep 16, 1889)

179 Hargett v. Summerfield, 137 F.Supp. 876, 878 (D.D.C Feb 06, 1956) (NO. CIV. 4009-55)

180 U.S. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. of Idaho, 207 F. 164, 172+ (D.Idaho Apr 01, 1913)

181 State of Illinois v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 33 F. 730, 733 (C.C.N.D.Ill. Feb 23, 1888)

182 Wilson Packing Co. v. Hunter, 30 F.Cas. 253, 253, 4 Ban. & A. 184, 184, 8 Biss. 429, 429, 11 Chi.Leg.N. 207, 207, 25 Int.Rev.Rec. 137, 137, 8 Cent. L.J. 333, 333, No. 17,852, 17852 (C.C.S.D.Ill. Mar 1879)

183 U.S. v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 26 F.Cas. 461, 461, 2 Biss. 174, 174, 5 Am. Law T. Rep. 309, 309, 1 Chi.Leg.N. 427, 427, No. 15,437, 15437 (C.C.N.D.Ill. Aug 1869)

184 U.S. v. Railroad Bridge Co., 27 F.Cas. 686, 690, 6 McLean 517, 517, No. 16,114, 16114, 3 Liv.Law Mag. 568, 568 (C.C.N.D.Ill. Jul Term 1855)

185 U.S. v. Delta Development Co., 322 F.Supp. 121, 128+ (E.D.La. Nov 16, 1970) (NO. CIV. 69-74)

186 Faustine Hawkins-El v. County Of Wayne, 2008 WL 474095, *1 (E.D.Mich. Feb 19, 2008) (NO. 08-10652)

187 HYlak v. Bieszk, 2007 WL 3253194, *5 (W.D.Mich. Nov 02, 2007) (NO. 1:07-CV-421) "

188 Thompkins-El v. Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, 2006 WL 2433438, *3 (E.D.Mich. Aug 22, 2006) (NO. CIV. 05-74715) "

189 BF Partners, LLC. v. Estate of McSorley, 2005 WL 1335150, *3+ (W.D.Mich. Jun 06, 2005) (NO. 103CV353)

190 U.S. v. Grand Rapids & I.R. Co., 154 F. 131, 135+ (C.C.W.D.Mich. May 25, 1907)

191 Lake Superior Ship Canal, Railway & Iron Co. v. Cunningham, 44 F. 819, 830 (C.C.W.D.Mich. Feb 1890)

192 U.S. v. Blendauer, 122 F. 703, 707+ (D.Mont. May 18, 1903) (NO. 101) "

193 101 Ranch v. U.S., 714 F.Supp. 1005, 1016 (D.N.D. Oct 28, 1988) (NO. CIV.A2-81-89)

194 Rice v. U.S., 348 F.Supp. 254, 257 (D.N.D. Sep 29, 1972) (NO. CIV. 1127)

195 Peterson v. Morton, 465 F.Supp. 986, 1001 (D.Nev. Jan 31, 1979) (NO. CIV. LV-1926)

196 U.S. v. Badeau, 31 F. 697, 699 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. Jul 06, 1887)

197 Dutilh v. Maxwell, 8 F.Cas. 168, 169, 2 Blatchf. 541, 541, No. 4207, 4207 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. Feb 1853)

198 U.S. v. State Bank of Winfield, Kan., 60 F.Supp. 335, 340 (E.D.Okla. Oct 23, 1944) (NO. 509)

199 U.S. v. Praeger, 149 F. 474, 485 (W.D.Tex. Jan 02, 1907) (NO. 1920) "

200 Baltimore & O.R. Co. v. Allen, 17 F. 171, 195 (C.C.W.D.Va. May 15, 1883) (in dissent)

201 Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Mitchell, 208 F. 469, 472+ (E.D.Wash. Jan 10, 1913) (NO. 1539)

202 U.S. v. Baltimore & O.R. Co., 24 F.Cas. 973, 975, 1 Hughes 138, 138, No. 14,510, 14510 (D.W.Va. Nov 1875)

203 Tektronix Inc. v. U. S., 351 F.2d 630, 635, 173 Ct.Cl. 281, 291, 147 U.S.P.Q. 216, 216 (Ct.Cl. Oct 15, 1965) (NO. 79-61) (BNA Version)

204 Waring v. U. S., 1954 WL 6081, *18, 127 Ct.Cl. 336, 364 (Ct.Cl. Jan 05, 1954)

205 Seltzer v. U.S., 1943 WL 4197, *3+, 98 Ct.Cl. 554, 558+ (Ct.Cl. Mar 01, 1943) (NO. 45709)

206 Chippewa Indians of Minnesota v. U.S., 1940 WL 4115, *8, 90 Ct.Cl. 140, 150 (Ct.Cl. Jan 08, 1940) (NO. H-163)





http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=USPQ&FindType=2&SerialNum=1965114924&CaseCite=1839+WL+4329&CaseSerial=1800139652






























207 Creek Nation v. U.S., 1933 WL 1779, *9, 77 Ct.Cl. 159, 171 (Ct.Cl. Mar 13, 1933)

208 Kellom v. U.S., 1920 WL 635, *2+, 55 Ct.Cl. 174, 176+ (Ct.Cl. Mar 01, 1920) (NO. 33235)

209 Maxwell v. U.S., 1914 WL 1395, *6+, 49 Ct.Cl. 262, 269+ (Ct.Cl. Feb 09, 1914)

210 Medkirk v. U.S., 1909 WL 902, *1+, 45 Ct.Cl. 395, 396+ (Ct.Cl. May 02, 1910) (NO. 21162)

211 Medkirk v. U.S., 1908 WL 761, *9, 44 Ct.Cl. 469, 481 (Ct.Cl. Mar 29, 1909) (NO. 21162)

212 Brown v. U.S., 1908 WL 748, *27, 44 Ct.Cl. 283, 321 (Ct.Cl. Feb 08, 1909) (NO. 29987) (in dissent)

213 Adams v. U.S., 1907 WL 896, *15, 42 Ct.Cl. 191, 212 (Ct.Cl. Feb 18, 1907)

214 Russian-American Packing Co. v. U.S., 1903 WL 840, *10, 39 Ct.Cl. 460, 475 (Ct.Cl. May 16, 1904) (NO. 20758) "

215 Bishop v. U.S., 1902 WL 1116, *8+, 38 Ct.Cl. 473, 485+ (Ct.Cl. Mar 23, 1903) (NO. 21914) "

216 Truitt v. U.S., 1902 WL 1110, *4, 38 Ct.Cl. 398, 404 (Ct.Cl. Mar 09, 1903) (NO. 22655)

217 Denig v. U.S., 1900 WL 1517, *3, 37 Ct.Cl. 383, 387 (Ct.Cl. Mar 31, 1902) (NO. 22629)

218 Swaim v. U.S., 1800 WL 1907, *30, 28 Ct.Cl. 173, 212 (Ct.Cl. Feb 27, 1893) (NO. 16859)

219 In re Billings, 1800 WL 1417, *8, 23 Ct.Cl. 166, 177 (Ct.Cl. Feb 27, 1888) (NO. 29)

220 Runkle v. U.S., 1800 WL 1139, *6+, 19 Ct.Cl. 396, 405+ (Ct.Cl. Apr 07, 1884) (NO. 14246) "

221 Nixon v. U.S., 1800 WL 1297, *5, 18 Ct.Cl. 448, 454 (Ct.Cl. Apr 23, 1883) (NO. 12743) "

222 McCollum v. U.S., 1800 WL 986, *8, 17 Ct.Cl. 92, 102 (Ct.Cl. Dec Term 1881)

223 Belt's Ex'x v. U.S., 1800 WL 1032, *11, 15 Ct.Cl. 92, 108 (Ct.Cl. Dec Term 1879)

224 Farden v. U.S., 1800 WL 951, *3, 13 Ct.Cl. 347, 351 (Ct.Cl. Dec Term 1877)

225 In re Hot Springs Cases, 1800 WL 827, *827, 10 Ct.Cl. 289, 295 (Ct.Cl. Dec Term 1874)

226 Otterbourg v. U.S., 1800 WL 2220, *2, 5 Ct.Cl. 430, 432 (Ct.Cl. Dec Term 1869)

227 Burns v. U.S., 1800 WL 616, *616, 4 Ct.Cl. 113, 115 (Ct.Cl. Dec Term 1868)

228 Ill. Central Railroad Co. v. U.S., 1858 WL 4672, *1, 6 U.S.Cong.Rep.C.C. 153, 153 (Ct.Cl. Feb 01, 1858) " (in dissent)

229 U.S. v. Allen, 31 M.J. 572, 595 (NMCMR Jun 15, 1990) (NO. NMCM 88 1330R)

230 State v. Board of School Com'rs of Mobile County, 63 So. 76, 83+, 183 Ala. 554, 576+ (Ala. Jun 30, 1913) "

231 Knabe v. Burden, 7 So. 92, 93, 88 Ala. 436, 438 (Ala. Dec 20, 1889)

232 Ex parte Hardy, 68 Ala. 303, 331+, 1880 WL 1432, *22+, 13 Cent. L.J. 50, 50+ (Ala. Dec Term 1880) (in dissent)

233 Bates v. Herron, 35 Ala. 117, 125, 1859 WL 680, *6 (Ala. Jun Term 1859)

234 Tillman v. Long, 29 Ala. 376, 377+, 1856 WL 390, *1+ (Ala. Jun Term 1856)

235 Johnson v. Collins, 12 Ala. 322, 332, 1847 WL 396, *7 (Ala. Jun Term 1847)

236 Tetlin Native Corp. v. State, 759 P.2d 528, 535 (Alaska Jul 29, 1988) (NO. S-2265, 3370)

237 Ortiz v. Manning, 82 P.2d 897, 899, 52 Ariz. 425, 428 (Ariz. Sep 26, 1938) (NO. 4008)

238 Old Dominion Copper Min. & Smelting Co. v. Haverly, 90 P. 333, 335, 11 Ariz. 241, 247 (Ariz.Terr. May 25, 1907)

239 Echols v. Tate, 13 S.W. 253, 254+, 53 Ark. 12, 12+ (Ark. Mar 01, 1890)

240 Hill v. Plunkett, 41 Ark. 465, 465, 1883 WL 1317, *1 (Ark. Nov Term 1883)

241 Gaines v. Hale, 26 Ark. 168, 170, 1870 WL 93, *1 (Ark. Dec Term 1870)

242 Walworth v. Miles, 23 Ark. 653, 662, 1861 WL 676, *6 (Ark. Dec Term 1861)

243 Sturdy v. Jacoway, 19 Ark. 499, 500, 1858 WL 602, *2 (Ark. Jan Term 1858)







































244 Gaines v. Hale, 16 Ark. 9, 21+, 1855 WL 561, *7+ (Ark. Jan Term 1855)

245 Howard v. Donahue, 9 P.C.L.J. 232, 232, 60 Cal. 264, 275, 1882 WL 1720, *8 (Cal. Mar 22, 1882) (NO. 6586)

246 Chapman v. Quinn, 6 P.C.L.J. 637, 637, 56 Cal. 266, 292, 1880 WL 203, *18 (Cal. Jul Term 1880) (NO. 5770) (in dissent)

247 Central Pac. R. Co. v. Yolland, 49 Cal. 438, 439+, 1875 WL 1645, *2+ (Cal. Jan Term 1875) (NO. 3490)

248 Buhne v. Chism, 48 Cal. 467, 470, 1874 WL 1378, *1 (Cal. Jul Term 1874) (NO. 3711)

249 Miller v. Little, 47 Cal. 348, 350, 1874 WL 1231, *1 (Cal. Jan Term 1874) (NO. 3079)

250 Parker v. Duff, 47 Cal. 554, 559, 1874 WL 1293, *1 (Cal. Jan Term 1874) (NO. 2864)

251 Polack v. Mansfield, 44 Cal. 36, 36+, 1872 WL 1234, *1+, 13 Am.Rep. 151, 151+ (Cal. Jul Term 1872) (NO. 2616)

252 Western Pac. R. Co. v. Tevis, 41 Cal. 489, 490, 1871 WL 1411, *1 (Cal. Apr Term 1871) (NO. 2082)

253 Hastings v. Devlin, 40 Cal. 358, 368, 1870 WL 960, *7 (Cal. Oct Term 1870) (NO. 1124)

254 Rush v. Casey, 39 Cal. 339, 340, 1870 WL 928, *1 (Cal. Apr Term 1870) (NO. 1747)

255 Alemany v. City of Petaluma, 38 Cal. 553, 555+, 1869 WL 796, *1+ (Cal. Oct Term 1869)

256 Durfee v. Plaisted, 38 Cal. 80, 82, 1869 WL 723, *1 (Cal. Jul Term 1869)

257 Megerle v. Ashe, 33 Cal. 74, 79+, 1867 WL 671, *3+ (Cal. Jul Term 1867)

258 Grogan v. Knight, 27 Cal. 515, 517, 1865 WL 433, *1 (Cal. Jan Term 1865)

259 Kernan v. Griffith, 27 Cal. 87, 89, 1864 WL 723, *1 (Cal. Oct Term 1864)

260 Friedman v. Macy, 17 Cal. 226, 227, 1861 WL 718, *2 (Cal. Jan Term 1861)

261 Stuart v. Allen, 16 Cal. 473, 493+, 1860 WL 984, *14+, 76 Am.Dec. 551, 551+ (Cal. Oct Term 1860)

262 Reynolds v. Harris, 14 Cal. 667, 668+, 1860 WL 893, *1+, 76 Am.Dec. 459, 459+ (Cal. Jan Term 1860)

263 Boggs v. Merced Mining Co., 14 Cal. 279, 343, 1859 WL 142, *43 (Cal. Oct 1859)

264 Matter of Archy, 9 Cal. 147, 158, 1858 WL 739, *11 (Cal. Jan Term 1858)

265 Clary v. Hoagland, 6 Cal. 685, 686+, 1856 WL 907, *2+ (Cal. Oct Term 1856)

266 Robinson v. Gaar, 6 Cal. 273, 274+, 1856 WL 788, *1+ (Cal. Jul Term 1856)

267 Nims v. Palmer, 6 Cal. 8, 11+, 1856 WL 671, *3+ (Cal. Jan Term 1856)

268 Pacific Power Co. v. State, 162 P. 643, 644, 32 Cal.App. 175, 177 (Cal.App. 3 Dist. Nov 24, 1916) (NO. 1463)

269 Hartman v. Tresise, 84 P. 685, 686, 36 Colo. 146, 150, 4 L.R.A.N.S. 872, 872 (Colo. Jun 05, 1905)

270 Farmers' High Line Canal & Reservoir Co. v. Moon, 45 P. 437, 438, 22 Colo. 560, 563 (Colo. Jun 01, 1896)

271 Vantongeren v. Heffernan, 38 N.W. 52, 60, 5 Dakota 180, 180 (Dakota Terr. May 08, 1888)

272 Pritchett v. Clark, 5 Harr. 63, 63, 5 Del. 63, 65, 1848 WL 814, *2 (Del.Err. & App. Jun Term 1848)

273 Prescott v. Bennett, 50 Ga. 266, 274, 1873 WL 2727, *6 (Ga. Jul Term 1873)

274 In re McCandless, 1937 WL 4437, *12+, 34 Haw. 93, 118+ (Hawai'i Terr. Mar 05, 1937) (NO. 2204)

275 Williams v. Sherman, 212 P. 971, 974, 36 Idaho 494, 494 (Idaho Dec 29, 1922) (NO. 4013)

276 Baty v. Sale, 43 Ill. 351, 352, 1867 WL 5041, *1, 92 Am.Dec. 128, 128 (Ill. Jan Term 1867)

277 Trustees of Illinois & Michigan Canal v. Brainard, 12 Ill. 487, 497, 1851 WL 4291, *8, 2 Peck (IL) 487, 487 (Ill. Jun Term 1851)

278 Wiggins v. Lusk, 12 Ill. 132, 133+, 1850 WL 4334, *2+, 2 Peck (IL) 132, 132+ (Ill. Dec Term 1850)





































279 Board of Trustees of Illinois & Michigan Canal v. People ex rel. Hoes, 12 Ill. 248, 251, 1850 WL 4359, *3, 52 Am.Dec. 488, 488, 2 Peck (IL) 248, 248 (Ill. Dec Term 1850)

280 Rigg v. Cook, 4 Gilman 336, 336+, 9 Ill. 336, 337+, 1847 WL 3866, *1+, 46 Am.Dec. 462, 462+ (Ill.Dec Term 1847)

281 Ferguson v. Sutphen, 3 Gilman 547, 547, 8 Ill. 547, 561, 1846 WL 3891, *10 (Ill. Dec Term 1846)

282 Bennett v. Farrar, 2 Gilman 598, 598+, 7 Ill. 598, 600+, 1845 WL 3973, *2+ (Ill. Dec Term 1845)

283 Turney v. Saunders, 4 Scam. 527, 527, 5 Ill. 527, 535, 1843 WL 4119, *7 (Ill. Dec Term 1843) (in dissent)

284 Fail v. Goodtitle ex dem. Hay, 1 Ill. 201, 203, 1826 WL 1775, *3, Breese 201, 201 (Ill. Dec Term 1826)

285 Mother Earth, Ltd. v. Strawberry Camel, Ltd., 390 N.E.2d 393, 401, 72 Ill.App.3d 37, 45, 28 Ill.Dec.226, 234 (Ill.App. 1 Dist. May 07, 1979) (NO. 77-1177, 78-314)

286 Iowa Elec. Co. v. State Bd. of Control, 266 N.W. 543, 545, 221 Iowa 1050, 1050 (Iowa Apr 07, 1936) (NO. 42959)

287 David v. Rickabaugh, 32 Iowa 540, 543, 1871 WL 610, *2 (Iowa Dec 08, 1871)

288 Klein's Heirs v. Argenbright, 26 Iowa 493, 496, 1869 WL 269, *2 (Iowa Jan 30, 1869)

289 Marshall v. Bush, Morris 275, 281, 1844 WL 3966, *6 (Iowa Terr. Jan Term 1844)

290 Levi v. Thompson, Morris 235, 237, 1843 WL 53, *2 (Iowa Terr. Jan Term 1843)

291 Lyman Flood Prevention Ass'n v. City of Topeka, 106 P.2d 117, 121, 152 Kan. 484, 484 (Kan. Oct 05, 1940) (NO. 34939)

292 Burlington, K. & S. W. R. Co. v. Johnson, 16 P. 125, 129, 38 Kan. 142, 142 (Kan. Dec 10, 1887)

293 Grinter v. Kansas Pac. Ry. Co., 23 Kan. 642, 645, 1880 WL 960, *2 (Kan. Jan Term 1880) "

294 Oliver v. Forbes, 17 Kan. 113, 116, 1876 WL 934, *1 (Kan. Jul Term 1876)

295 Leavenworth L. & G.R. Co. v. Coffin, 16 Kan. 510, 511, 1876 WL 1064, *1 (Kan. Jan Term 1876) "

296 Wood v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co., 11 Kan. 323, 326, 1873 WL 649, *2 (Kan. Jan Term 1873)

297 Clay v. State, 4 Kan. 49, 53, 1866 WL 445, *2 (Kan. Jul Term 1866)

298 Janes v. Wilkinson, 42 P. 735, 737, 2 Kan.App. 361, 361 (Kan.App. Nov 11, 1895)

299 Com. v. James, 128 S.W. 338, 339, 138 Ky. 472, 472 (Ky. May 27, 1910)

300 Meyer v. State, 121 So. 604, 606, 168 La. 146, 151 (La. Feb 25, 1929) (NO. 29727)

301 Ford v. Edenborn, 77 So. 851, 852, 142 La. 927, 930 (La. Jan 28, 1918) (NO. 21109) "

302 Haggerty v. Annison, 62 So. 946, 946+, 133 La. 338, 338+ (La. May 12, 1913) (NO. 19,352)

303 Ludeling v. Vester, 20 La.Ann. 433, 437, 1868 WL 4439, *5 (La. Jun 1868) (NO. 1013)

304 Bell v. Hearne, 10 La.Ann. 515, 517, 1855 WL 4479, *2 (La. Jul 1855)

305 Terry v. Hennen, 4 La.Ann. 458, 460+, 1849 WL 3767, *2+ (La. Jun 1849)

306 Lott v. Prudhomme, 3 Rob. (LA) 293, 295+, 1842 WL 1545, *2+ (La. Oct 1842)

307 Landry v. Gautreau, 1 Rob. (LA) 372, 376, 1842 WL 1443, *2 (La. Feb 1842)

308 Barton's Ex'x v. Hempkin, 19 La. 510, 515, 1841 WL 1676, *2 (La. Oct 1841)

309 Guidry v. Woods, 19 La. 334, 339, 1841 WL 1608, *2, 36 Am.Dec. 677, 677 (La. Sep 1841)

310 Riceland Petroleum Co. v. North American Land Co., Inc., 869 So.2d 894, 899, 159 Oil & Gas Rep. 663, 663, 2003-241 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/18/04), 8 (La.App. 3 Cir. Feb 18, 2004) (NO. CA 03-241)

311 West v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., 123 N.E. 621, 623, 233 Mass. 162, 166 (Mass. Jun 18, 1919)

312 Taylor v. Wilson, 11 Metcalf 44, 44, 52 Mass. 44, 49, 1846 WL 3957, *4, 45 Am.Dec. 180, 180 (Mass. 1846)




































313 Sterling v. Jackson, 37 N.W. 845, 846, 69 Mich. 488, 488, 13 Am.St.Rep. 405, 405 (Mich. Apr 20, 1888)

314 Boyce v. Danz, 29 Mich. 146, 151, 1874 WL 6360, *3 (Mich. Apr 08, 1874)

315 People ex rel. Brewer v. Kidd, 23 Mich. 440, 440, 1871 WL 5621, *5621 (Mich. Oct 04, 1871)

316 Ballou v. O'Brien, 20 Mich. 304, 312, 1 Mich.N.P.Supp. LIII, LIII, 1870 WL 4130, *5 (Mich. May 03, 1870)

317 In re Spangler, 11 Mich. 298, 322, 1863 WL 1187, *14 (Mich. May 12, 1863)

318 Marathon Tp. v. Oregon Tp., 8 Mich. 372, 376, 1860 WL 4690, *3 (Mich. Jun 09, 1860)

319 Greenvault v. Farmers' & Mechanics' Bank, 2 Doug. 498, 505, 1847 WL 2635, *4 (Mich. Jan Term 1847)

320 O'Connor v. Gertgens, 89 N.W. 866, 872, 85 Minn. 481, 497 (Minn. Apr 04, 1902)

321 Burfenning v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 48 N.W. 444, 444, 46 Minn. 20, 20 (Minn. Apr 03, 1891)

322 German Land Ass'n v. Scholler, 10 Minn. 331, 339, 1865 WL 976, *5, 10 Gil. 260, 260 (Minn. Jan Term 1865)

323 State v. Batchelder, 7 Minn. 121, 130+, 1862 WL 76, *7+, 7 Gil. 79, 79+ (Minn. Jul Term 1862)

324 Randall v. Edert, 7 Minn. 450, 452, 1862 WL 1290, *2, 7 Gil. 359, 359 (Minn. Jul Term 1862)

325 Irvine v. Marshall, 7 Minn. 286, 299+, 1862 WL 1268, *10+, 7 Gil. 216, 216+ (Minn. Jul Term 1862) "

326 State v. Bachelder, 5 Minn. 223, 227+, 1861 WL 4341, *1+, 80 Am.Dec. 410, 410+, 5 Gil. 178, 178+(Minn. Jul Term 1861)

327 Land v. Keirn, 52 Miss. 341, 350, 1876 WL 5193, *6 (Miss. Apr Term 1876)

328 Minter v. Shirley, 45 Miss. 376, 378+, 1871 WL 3994, *1+ (Miss. Oct Term 1871)

329 Hardin v. Ho-yo-po-nubby, 5 Cushm. 567, 567, 27 Miss. 567, 576, 1854 WL 2268, *6 (Miss.Err. & App. Apr Term 1854)

330 Vick v. Percy, 7 Smedes & M. 256, 256, 15 Miss. 256, 267, 1846 WL 1688, *8, 45 Am.Dec. 303, 303 (Miss.Err. & App. Nov Term 1846)

331 Funkhouser v. Peck, 67 Mo. 19, 21+, 1877 WL 9262, *1+ (Mo. Oct Term 1877) "

332 Magwire v. Tyler, 40 Mo. 406, 416, 1867 WL 74, *6 (Mo. Mar Term 1867)

333 Pacific R.R. v. Lindell's Heirs, 39 Mo. 329, 336, 1866 WL 4353, *4 (Mo. Oct Term 1866)

334 Hannibal & St. J.R. Co. v. Moore, 37 Mo. 338, 339, 1866 WL 4084, *1 (Mo. Feb Term 1866)

335 Hill v. Miller, 36 Mo. 182, 185+, 1865 WL 2668, *3+ (Mo. Aug Term 1865)

336 Allison v. Hunter, 9 Mo. 749, 756, 1846 WL 3738, *4 (Mo. Jan Term 1846)

337 Lewis v. Lewis, 9 Mo. 183, 190, 1845 WL 3839, *4, 43 Am.Dec. 540, 540 (Mo. Jan Term 1845)

338 Trotter v. St. Louis Public Schools, 9 Mo. 69, 102, 1845 WL 3757, *23 (Mo. Jan Term 1845) (in dissent)

339 Stephenson v. Smith, 7 Mo. 610, 638+, 1842 WL 3761, *15+ (Mo. Sep Term 1842)

340 Heiser v. Severy, 158 P.2d 501, 508, 117 Mont. 105, 122, 160 A.L.R. 319, 319 (Mont. Mar 19, 1945) (NO. 8482)

341 Barnes v. Montana Lumber & Hardware Co., 216 P. 335, 337, 67 Mont. 481, 481 (Mont. Jun 12, 1923) (NO. 5239) "

342 State v. Tully, 78 P. 760, 766+, 31 Mont. 365, 365+, 3 Am.Ann.Cas. 824, 824+ (Mont. Dec 01, 1904)(NO. 2054) "

343 U.S. v. Bisel, 19 P. 251, 253+, 8 Mont. 20, 20+ (Mont.Terr. Sep 15, 1888)

































344 Gunberg v. Juveland, 179 N.W. 375, 376, 46 N.D. 44, 44 (N.D. Sep 25, 1920)

345 Morton v. Green, 2 Neb. 441, 448+, 1872 WL 100, *4+ (Neb. 1872)

346 Franklin v. Kelley, 2 Neb. 79, 90, 1872 WL 5813, *6 (Neb. 1872)

347 Smiley v. Sampson, 1 Neb. 56, 75, 1871 WL 124, *11 (Neb. 1871)

348 Springer v. Clopath, 65 P. 804, 805, 26 Nev. 183, 183 (Nev. Jul 26, 1901) (NO. 1602) "

349 Metcalf v. Gilmore, 59 N.H. 417, 427, 1879 WL 4262, *9, 47 Am.Rep. 217, 217 (N.H. 1879)

350 Delaware, L. & W.R. Co. v. Henry Nuhs Co., 111 A. 223, 224, 93 N.J.L. 309, 312, 8 Gummere 309, 309 (N.J.Sup. Jul 15, 1919)

351 D.L. & W.R. Co. v. Ginsberg, 63 A.2d 300, 300, 26 N.J. Misc. 331, 332 (N.J.Dist.Ct. Nov 29, 1948)

352 State v. Patten, 69 P.2d 931, 935, 41 N.M. 395, 395 (N.M. Jun 21, 1937) (NO. 4152) "

353 White v. Mayo, 299 P. 1068, 1070, 35 N.M. 430, 430 (N.M. Apr 15, 1931) (NO. 3551)

354 Fisher v. Hepburn, 3 Sickels 41, 48 N.Y. 41, 52, 1871 WL 9889, *9889 (N.Y. 1871) "

355 People ex rel. Davis v. Sturtevant, 5 Seld. 263, 263, Seld.Notes 196, 196, 9 N.Y. 263, 266, 1853 WL 6074, *3, 59 Am.Dec. 536, 536 (N.Y. 1853)

356 Wickelhausen v. Willett, 10 Abb.Pr. 164, 164 (N.Y.Super. 1860)

357 Kamp v. Kamp, 46 How. Pr. 143, 144+ (N.Y.Sup. 1873)

358 Baltimore & O.R. Co. v. Cary, 1876 WL 3, *6, 28 Ohio St. 208, 217 (Ohio Dec Term 1876) (in dissent)

359 Matheny v. Golden, 1856 WL 2, *25, 5 Ohio St. 361, 400 (Ohio Dec Term 1856) (in dissent)

360 Noble v. Oklahoma City, 44 P.2d 135, 142+, 172 Okla. 182, 182+, 1935 OK 162, 162+ (Okla. Feb 19, 1935) (NO. 23821, 23822) "

361 Goff v. Goff, 231 P. 204, 205, 104 Okla. 257, 257, 1924 OK 1011, 1011 (Okla. Nov 12, 1924) (NO. 15088) "

362 Foreman v. Marks, 209 P. 1040, 1043, 87 Okla. 205, 205, 1922 OK 297, 297 (Okla. Oct 03, 1922) (NO. 10793) "

363 Grayson v. Durant, 144 P. 592, 595, 43 Okla. 799, 799, 1914 OK 581, 581 (Okla. Nov 24, 1914) (NO. 3328)

364 Phillips v. Byrd, 143 P. 684, 686, 43 Okla. 556, 556, 1914 OK 489, 489 (Okla. Oct 13, 1914) (NO. 3419)

365 McMichael v. Murphy, 70 P. 189, 191+, 12 Okla. 155, 155+, 1902 OK 71, 71+ (Okla.Terr. Sep 02, 1902)

366 Adams v. Freeman, 50 P. 135, 138, 1897 OK 49, 49 (Okla.Terr. Jul 30, 1897)

367 State ex rel. Kaser v. Leonard, 102 P.2d 197, 205, 164 Or. 579, 604, 129 A.L.R. 1125, 1125 (Or. May14, 1940)

368 Moore v. Halliday, 72 P. 801, 802, 43 Or. 243, 253, 99 Am.St.Rep. 724, 724 (Or. Jun 22, 1903)

369 Stewart v. Altstock, 29 P. 553, 555, 22 Or. 182, 187 (Or. Mar 29, 1892)

370 Larsen v. Oregon Ry. & Nav. Co., 23 P. 974, 977, 19 Or. 240, 246 (Or. May 16, 1890)

371 Hyde v. Holland, 22 P. 1104, 1104, 18 Or. 331, 334 (Or. Jan 09, 1890)

372 Dolph v. Barney, 1874 WL 241, *7, 5 Or. 191, 202 (Or. Dec Term 1874)

373 Gaston v. Stott, 1873 WL 959, *3+, 5 Or. 48, 50+ (Or. Dec Term 1873)

374 Lee v. Summers, 1868 WL 651, *5, 2 Or. 260, 267 (Or. Sep Term 1868)

375 Groslouis v. Northcut, 1872 WL 1012, *3, 3 Or. 394, 397 (Or.Cir. Feb Term 1872)

376 White v. Allen, 1869 WL 594, *5+, 3 Or. 103, 111+ (Or.Cir. Oct Term 1869)



































377 James v. Smith, 2 S.C. 183, 188, 1870 WL 3509, *4, 2 Richardson 183, 183 (S.C. Apr Term 1870)

378 Gould v. Tucker, 105 N.W. 624, 626, 20 S.D. 226, 226 (S.D. Nov 29, 1905)

379 Bryan v. Shirley, 53 Tex. 440, 455, 1880 WL 9330, *10 (Tex. 1880) (NO. 3625)

380 Milam County v. Bateman, 54 Tex. 153, 158+, 1880 WL 9379, *2+ (Tex. 1880) (NO. 853)

381 Edgar v. Galveston City Co., 46 Tex. 421, 425, 1877 WL 8547, *3 (Tex. 1877)

382 Kuechler v. Wright, 40 Tex. 600, 606, 1874 WL 7968, *4 (Tex. 1874)

383 Galan v. Goliad, 32 Tex. 776, 781, 1870 WL 5684, *4 (Tex. 1870)

384 Sherwood v. Fleming, 25 Tex.Supp. 408, 421, 1860 WL 5894, *10 (Tex. 1860)

385 Edgar v. Galveston City Co., 21 Tex. 302, 319, 1858 WL 5457, *9 (Tex. 1858)

386 Kimmell v. Wheeler, 22 Tex. 77, 82+, 1858 WL 5593, *4+ (Tex. 1858)

387 Mason v. Russel's Heirs, 1 Tex. 721, 725+, 1847 WL 3500, *3+ (Tex. Dec Term 1847)

388 Yoakum County v. Slaughter, 160 S.W. 1175, 1180 (Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo Nov 01, 1913)

389 U.S. v. Elliot, 26 P. 1117, 1118, 7 Utah 389, 389 (Utah Terr. Jul 01, 1891) "

390 Laurelhurst Club v. Backus, 296 P. 819, 821, 161 Wash. 185, 192 (Wash. Mar 05, 1931) (NO. 22677)

391 State v. Superior Court of Washington for Mason County, 238 P. 985, 988, 136 Wash. 87, 96 (Wash. Sep 02, 1925) (NO. 19354)

392 State v. Superior Court for Jefferson County, 157 P. 1097, 1099, 91 Wash. 454, 459 (Wash. Jun 09, 1916) (NO. 13152)

393 Card v. Cerini, 150 P. 610, 610, 86 Wash. 419, 421 (Wash. Jul 29, 1915) (NO. 12507) "

394 State v. Whitney, 120 P. 116, 121, 66 Wash. 473, 488 (Wash. Jan 04, 1912)

395 Eckert v. Schmitt, 110 P. 635, 637+, 60 Wash. 23, 27+ (Wash. Sep 06, 1910) "

396 Krieg v. Lewis, 105 P. 483, 484, 56 Wash. 196, 198, 26 L.R.A.N.S. 1117, 1117 (Wash. Dec 06, 1909)

397 Cunningham v. Krutz, 83 P. 109, 112, 41 Wash. 190, 197, 7 L.R.A.N.S. 967, 967 (Wash. Dec 27, 1905)

398 McSorley v. Hill, 27 P. 552, 556, 2 Wash. 638, 650 (Wash. Aug 01, 1891) (NO. 196) "

399 Pierce v. Frace, 26 P. 807, 808, 2 Wash. 81, 102 (Wash. Feb 11, 1891) (in dissent)

400 Smith v. City of Beloit, 100 N.W. 877, 881, 122 Wis. 396, 396 (Wis. Sep 27, 1904)

401 Mendota Club v. Anderson, 78 N.W. 185, 188, 101 Wis. 479, 479 (Wis. Jan 10, 1899)

402 Whitney v. Detroit Lumber Co., 47 N.W. 425, 427, 78 Wis. 240, 240 (Wis. Dec 16, 1890) "

403 Wisconsin Cent. R. Co. v. Wisconsin River Land Co., 36 N.W. 837, 839, 71 Wis. 94, 94 (Wis. Feb 28, 1888) "

404 Paige v. Peters, 35 N.W. 328, 329, 70 Wis. 178, 178, 5 Am.St.Rep. 156, 156 (Wis. Nov 22, 1887)

405 Denniston v. Unknown Owners, 29 Wis. 351, 353, 1872 WL 5836, *1 (Wis. Jan Term 1872)

406 Ruggles v. Marsilliott, 19 Wis. 159, 170, 1865 WL 748, *7 (Wis. Jan Term 1865)

407 Bracken v. Parkinson, 1 Pin. 685, 694+, 1846 WL 2862, *4+ (Wis.Terr. Jul Term 1846) "

408 Bracken v. Preston, 1 Pin. 584, 599, 1845 WL 1327, *7, 44 Am.Dec. 412, 412 (Wis.Terr. Jul Term 1845)

409 Parkison v. Bracken, Bur. 13, 17, 1 Pin. 174, 178, 1842 WL 1306, *2, 39 Am.Dec. 296, 296 (Wis.Terr. Jul Term 1842)

410 San Geronimo Caribe Project, Inc. v. Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico, 2008 WL 3861853, *40+, 2008TSPR129, 129+ (P.R. Jul 31, 2008) (NO. CT-2008-4)

411 Pantlind Hotel Co. v. C.I.R., 1927 WL 199, *199, 9 B.T.A. 878, 884 (B.T.A. Dec 27, 1927) (NO. 18436)





































412 Trustees for Ohio & Big Sandy Coal Co. v. C.I.R., 1927 WL 144, *144, 9 B.T.A. 617, 625 (B.T.A. Dec 17, 1927) (NO. 7888)

Mentioned

413 Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp., 69 S.Ct. 1457, 1472, 337 U.S. 682, 710, 93 L.Ed. 1628, 1628 (U.S.Dist.Col. Jun 27, 1949) (NO. 31) (in dissent)

414 Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. of Idaho v. U.S., 37 S.Ct. 625, 627, 244 U.S. 351, 357, 61 L.Ed. 1184, 1184 (U.S.Idaho Jun 04, 1917) (NO. 176)

415 Light v. U.S., 31 S.Ct. 485, 487, 220 U.S. 523, 535, 55 L.Ed. 570, 570 (U.S.Colo. May 01, 1911) (NO. 360)

416 Reagan v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 14 S.Ct. 1047, 1052, 154 U.S. 362, 391, 38 L.Ed. 1014, 1014 (U.S.Tex. May 26, 1894) (NO. 928)

417 Guaranty Trust & Safe-Deposit Co. v. Green Cove Springs & Melrose R. Co., 11 S.Ct. 512, 516, 139U.S. 137, 147, 35 L.Ed. 116, 116 (U.S.Fla. Mar 09, 1891)

418 In re Sawyer, 8 S.Ct. 482, 493, 124 U.S. 200, 220, 31 L.Ed. 402, 402 (U.S.Neb. Jan 09, 1888)

419 Poindexter v. Greenhow, 5 S.Ct. 903, 912, 114 U.S. 270, 287, 29 L.Ed. 185, 185 (U.S.Va. Apr 20, 1885)

420 Cunningham v. Macon & B. R. Co., 3 S.Ct. 292, 297, 109 U.S. 446, 452, 27 L.Ed. 992, 992 (U.S.Ga.Dec 03, 1883)

421 Stark v. Starrs, 1867 WL 11204, *5, 73 U.S. 402, 408, 18 L.Ed. 925, 925, 6 Wall. 402, 402 (U.S.Or. Dec Term 1867)

422 Harkness v. Underhill, 1861 WL 7705, *4, 66 U.S. 316, 320, 1 Black 316, 316, 17 L.Ed. 208, 208 (U.S.Ill. Dec Term 1861)

423 Rice v. Minnesota & N. W. R. Co., 1861 WL 7682, *4, 66 U.S. 358, 365, 1 Black 358, 358, 17 L.Ed. 147, 147 (U.S.Minn. Dec Term 1861)

424 Magwire v. Tyler, 1861 WL 7664, *1, 66 U.S. 195, 196, 1 Black 195, 195, 17 L.Ed. 137, 137 (U.S.Mo. Dec Term 1861)

425 Kissell v. St. Louis Public Schools Board of President and Directors, 1855 WL 8238, *8, 59 U.S. 19, 27, 18 How. 19, 19, 15 L.Ed. 324, 324 (U.S.Mo. Dec Term 1855)

426 Kennedy v. Hunt's Lessee, 1849 WL 6395, *3+, 48 U.S. 586, 589+, 7 How. 586, 586+, 12 L.Ed. 829,829+ (U.S.Ala. Jan Term 1849)

427 Fourniquet v. Perkins, 1849 WL 6410, *4, 48 U.S. 160, 164, 7 How. 160, 160, 12 L.Ed. 650, 650 (U.S.La. Jan Term 1849)

428 Peck v. Jenness, 1849 WL 6401, *3, 48 U.S. 612, 614, 7 How. 612, 612, 12 L.Ed. 841, 841 (U.S.N.H. Jan Term 1849)

429 Bank of U.S. v. Moss, 1848 WL 6435, *7, 47 U.S. 31, 38, 6 How. 31, 31, 12 L.Ed. 331, 331 (U.S.Miss. Term 1848)

430 Levi v. Thompson, 1846 WL 5687, *2, 45 U.S. 17, 18, 4 How. 17, 17, 11 L.Ed. 856, 856 (U.S.Iowa Jan Term 1846)

431 Blondet v. Hadley, 144 F.2d 370, 372 (C.C.A.1 (Puerto Rico) Aug 25, 1944) (NO. 3924)

432 Roxford Knitting Co. v. Moore & Tierney, 265 F. 177, 190, 11 A.L.R. 1415, 1415 (C.C.A.2 (N.Y.) Mar 18, 1920) (NO. 70, 71)

433 Elliott v. Peirsoll, 8 F.Cas. 543, 543, 1 McLean 11, 11, No. 4395, 4395 (C.C.D.Ky. May Term 1829)

434 State of Wis. v. Baker, 698 F.2d 1323, 1327 (7th Cir.(Wis.) Jan 26, 1983) (NO. 81-2868, 81-2916)

























435 Duke v. Durfee, 308 F.2d 209, 213 (8th Cir.(Mo.) Sep 18, 1962) (NO. 16763, 16764)

436 Utah Power & Light Co. v. U.S., 230 F. 328, 340, 144 C.C.A. 470, 470 (C.C.A.8 (Utah) Nov 24, 1915) (NO. 4506, 4507)

437 Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Karges, 169 F. 459, 462 (C.C.D.Neb. May 04, 1909)

438 Neff v. U. S., 165 F. 273, 281, 91 C.C.A. 241, 241 (C.C.A.8 (Kan.) Nov 23, 1908) (NO. 2613)

439 Wadsworth v. Boysen, 148 F. 771, 780, 78 C.C.A. 437, 437 (C.C.A.8 (Wyo.) Nov 23, 1906) (NO. 2456)

440 Northern Lumber Co. v. O'Brien, 139 F. 614, 616, 71 C.C.A. 598, 598 (C.C.A.8 (Minn.) Jul 26, 1905) (NO. 2219)

441 In re Brodie, 128 F. 665, 668, 63 C.C.A. 419, 419 (C.C.A.8 Mar 04, 1904) (NO. 36, 37, 38, 39)

442 Peyton v. Desmond, 129 F. 1, 10, 63 C.C.A. 651, 651 (C.C.A.8 (Minn.) Feb 15, 1904) (NO. 1878)

443 King v. McAndrews, 111 F. 860, 864+, 50 C.C.A. 29, 29+ (C.C.A.8 (S.D.) Oct 28, 1901) (NO. 1569)

444 James v. Germania Iron Co., 107 F. 597, 603, 46 C.C.A. 476, 476 (C.C.A.8 (Minn.) Mar 28, 1901) (NO. 1434, 1433)

445 St. Paul & N.P. Ry. Co. v. St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co., 57 F. 272, 273 (C.C.D.Minn. Aug 24, 1893)

446 Burr v. Greeley, 52 F. 926, 927, 3 C.C.A. 357, 357 (C.C.A.8 (Mo.) Oct 17, 1892) (NO. 130)

447 Saulque v. U.S., 663 F.2d 968, 974 (9th Cir.(Cal.) Dec 14, 1981) (NO. 80-4078)

448 U. S. v. Consolidated Mines & Smelting Co., 455 F.2d 432, 442 (9th Cir.(Wash.) Dec 06, 1971) (NO.25164, 25241)

449 U.S. v. Hanson, 167 F. 881, 889, 93 C.C.A. 371, 371 (C.C.A.9 (Wash.) Feb 01, 1909) (NO. 1632)

450 U.S. v. Oregon & C.R. Co., 143 F. 765, 771, 75 C.C.A. 66, 66 (C.C.A.9 (Or.) Feb 05, 1906) (NO. 1213)

451 Garrard v. Silver Peak Mines, 82 F. 578, 583 (C.C.D.Nev. Aug 16, 1897) (NO. 617)

452 Murray v. American Surety Co., 70 F. 341, 346, 17 C.C.A. 138, 138 (C.C.A.9 (Cal.) Oct 08, 1895) (NO. 218)

453 Ute Indian Tribe v. State of Utah, 773 F.2d 1087, 1106 (10th Cir.(Utah) Sep 17, 1985) (NO. 81-1827,81-1901) (in dissent)

454 Ute Indian Tribe v. State of Utah, 716 F.2d 1298, 1305 (10th Cir.(Utah) Aug 29, 1983) (NO. 81-1827, 81-1901)

455 Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Kansas City, W. & N.W.R. Co., 53 F. 182, 192 (C.C.D.Kan. Nov 21, 1892)

456 Walker v. Ford, 269 F. 877, 878, 50 App.D.C. 225, 226 (App.D.C. Jan 03, 1921) (NO. 3409)

457 Central Pac. Ry. Co. v. Lane, 46 App.D.C. 374, 379+, 1917 WL 20126, *4+ (App.D.C. Apr 23, 1917)(NO. 3012)

458 U.S. ex rel. Southern Pac. R. Co. v. Lane, 46 App.D.C. 74, 76, 1917 WL 20130, *2 (App.D.C. Feb 06, 1917) (NO. 3010)

459 Morse v. U.S., 29 App.D.C. 433, 439, 1907 WL 19758, *4 (App.D.C. May 07, 1907) (NO. 1704)

460 Goff v. U.S., 22 App.D.C. 512, 526, 1903 WL 18585, *10 (App.D.C. Nov 04, 1903) (NO. 1315)

461 District of Columbia v. Humphries, 12 App.D.C. 122, 124, 1898 WL 15575, *2 (App.D.C. Jan 05, 1898) (NO. 742)

462 St. Louis & S.F.R. Co. v. Allen, 181 F. 710, 722 (C.C.W.D.Ark. Aug 18, 1910)

463 Sawyer v. Osterhaus, 212 F. 765, 775 (N.D.Cal. Feb 07, 1914) (NO. 15069)

464 In re Eaton, 51 F. 804, 805 (C.C.N.D.Cal. Aug 22, 1892) (NO. 11684, 11690)

465 Lakin v. Dolly, 53 F. 333, 336 (C.C.N.D.Cal. Mar 23, 1891) (NO. 10596, 10630)

































466 Hill v. District of Columbia, 7 Mackey 481, 481, 1889 WL 11618, *2, 18 D.C. 481, 482 (D.C.Sup. Dec 1889) (NO. 28011)

467 Offutt v. Dangler, 5 Mackey 313, 313, 1886 WL 15890, *2, 16 D.C. 313, 315 (D.C.Sup. Nov 08, 1886) (NO. 26730)

468 U.S. ex rel. De la Rua v. Bayard, 4 Mackey 310, 310, 1885 WL 18385, *4, 15 D.C. 310, 313 (D.C.Sup. Dec 07, 1885) (NO. 15310)

469 International Paper Co. v. Burrill, 260 F. 664, 667 (D.Mass. Sep 19, 1919) (NO. 1060)

470 In re Elmira Steel Co., 109 F. 456, 465 (N.D.N.Y. Apr 17, 1901)

471 Beaver v. Short, 300 F. 113, 114 (E.D.Okla. Jul 19, 1924) (NO. 3003)

472 Adams v. Terrell, 4 F. 796, 800, 4 Woods 337, 337 (C.C.W.D.Tex. Nov 20, 1880)

473 Lee v. Kaufman, 15 F.Cas. 204, 208, 3 Hughes 139, 139, No. 8192, 8192 (C.C.E.D.Va. Jan 30, 1879)

474 Boston Towboat Co. v. John H. Sesnon Co., 199 F. 445, 447 (W.D.Wash. Aug 24, 1912) (NO. 2,055)

475 Congress Const. Corp. v. U. S., 314 F.2d 527, 531, 161 Ct.Cl. 50, 56 (Ct.Cl. Mar 06, 1963) (NO. 535-59)

476 Brownfield v. U.S., 1960 WL 8447, *4, 148 Ct.Cl. 411, 416 (Ct.Cl. Jan 20, 1960)

477 Sabin v. U.S., 44 F.2d 70, 77, 70 Ct.Cl. 574, 587, 2 USTC P 589, 589, 9 A.F.T.R. 236, 236 (Ct.Cl. Oct 20, 1930) (NO. H-391, J-651)

478 Weller v. U.S., 1906 WL 883, *7, 41 Ct.Cl. 324, 335 (Ct.Cl. Apr 02, 1906)

479 Verdier v. U.S., 1800 WL 1918, *1918, 28 Ct.Cl. 268, 270 (Ct.Cl. Apr 10, 1893) (NO. 16340)

480 Filhiol v. U.S., 1800 WL 1899, *5, 28 Ct.Cl. 110, 116 (Ct.Cl. Jan 31, 1893) (NO. 17196)

481 King v. U.S., 1800 WL 2020, *2020, 27 Ct.Cl. 529, 533 (Ct.Cl. Nov 28, 1892) (NO. 12335)

482 Newton v. U.S., 1800 WL 1295, *4, 18 Ct.Cl. 435, 439 (Ct.Cl. Apr 23, 1883) (NO. 12329)

483 U.S. v. Markovitz, 1954 WL 2542, *2542, 16 C.M.R. 709, 711 (AFBR Jun 24, 1954) (NO. ACM 8876)

484 Board of Revenue of Covington County v. Merrill, 68 So. 971, 979, 193 Ala. 521, 546 (Ala. Apr 23, 1915) (NO. 556)

485 Harris v. Cosby, 55 So. 231, 235, 173 Ala. 81, 96 (Ala. Feb 02, 1911)

486 Wood v. Pittman, 20 So. 972, 973+, 113 Ala. 207, 212+ (Ala. Nov 25, 1896)

487 Moody v. Bibb, 50 Ala. 245, 248, 1874 WL 979, *2 (Ala. Jan Term 1874)

488 Ware v. St. Louis Bagging & Rope Co., 47 Ala. 667, 671, 1872 WL 852, *3 (Ala. Jan Term 1872)

489 Phillips v. Sherman, 36 Ala. 189, 194, 1860 WL 527, *3 (Ala. Jan Term 1860)

490 Rose v. Griffin, 33 Ala. 717, 723, 1859 WL 632, *4 (Ala. Jan Term 1859)

491 Stephens v. Westwood, 25 Ala. 716, 719, 1854 WL 385, *3 (Ala. Jun Term 1854)

492 Mitchell v. Cobb, 13 Ala. 137, 138, 1848 WL 307, *1 (Ala. Jan Term 1848)

493 Territory v. Delinquent Tax List of Apache County for 1887, 21 P. 888, 894, 3 Ariz. 69, 91 (Ariz.Terr.Mar 20, 1889)

494 Casselberry v. Fletcher, 27 Ark. 385, 388, 1872 WL 1024, *2 (Ark. Jun Term 1872)

495 McNeil v. Kingsbury, 213 P. 50, 52, 190 Cal. 406, 410 (Cal. Feb 14, 1923) (NO. S.F. 10440)

496 McLaughlin v. Heid, 11 P.C.L.J. 80, 80+, 63 Cal. 208, 209+, 1883 WL 1417, *1+ (Cal. Feb 27, 1883)

497 Cruz v. Martinez, 2 P.C.L.J. 262, 262, 53 Cal. 239, 242, 1878 WL 1451, *2, 2 Cal.Leg.Rec. 90, 90 (Cal. Oct Term 1878) (NO. 5897)

498 Figg v. Handley, 52 Cal. 244, 245, 1877 WL 1769, *1 (Cal. Apr Term 1877) (NO. 5036)

499 Sacramento Sav. Bank v. Hynes, 50 Cal. 195, 199, 1875 WL 1564, *3 (Cal. Jul Term 1875) (NO. 3910)




































500 Morenhout v. Barron, 42 Cal. 591, 601, 1871 WL 1535, *5 (Cal. Jan Term 1871) (NO. 1705)

501 Jones v. City of Petaluma, 38 Cal. 397, 399, 1869 WL 771, *1 (Cal. Oct Term 1869)

502 Hutton v. Frisbie, 37 Cal. 475, 479+, 1869 WL 918, *2+ (Cal. Jul Term 1869)

503 Terry v. Megerle, 24 Cal. 609, 613+, 1864 WL 613, *3+, 85 Am.Dec. 84, 84+ (Cal. Apr Term 1864)

504 Townsend v. Gordon, 19 Cal. 188, 197+, 1861 WL 988, *8+ (Cal. Oct Term 1861)

505 Leese v. Clark, 18 Cal. 535, 548, 1861 WL 919, *10 (Cal. Jul Term 1861)

506 Northern Pac. R.R. Co. v. Peronto, 14 N.W. 103, 106, 3 Dakota 217, 217 (Dakota Terr. Nov 20, 1882)

507 State v. Jennings, 35 So. 986, 994, 47 Fla. 302, 325, 47 Fla. 307, 307 (Fla. Apr 28, 1903)

508 Florida Town Imp. Co. v. Bigalsky, 33 So. 450, 451, 44 Fla. 771, 776 (Fla. Dec 22, 1902)

509 Johnson v. Drew, 15 So. 780, 782, 34 Fla. 130, 138, 43 Am.St.Rep. 172, 172 (Fla. Jul 19, 1894)

510 Tucker v. Harris, 13 Ga. 1, 8, 1853 WL 1553, *5, 58 Am.Dec. 488, 488 (Ga. Feb Term 1853) (NO. 1)

511 Batterton v. Douglas Mining Co., 120 P. 827, 829, 20 Idaho 760, 760, 38 L.R.A.N.S. 1121, 1121 (Idaho Dec 13, 1911)

512 Webster v. French, 11 Ill. 254, 260+, 1849 WL 4283, *4+, 1 Peck (IL) 254, 254+ (Ill. Dec Term 1849)

513 Cook v. Jersey County School Com'rs, 1 Gilman 537, 537, 6 Ill. 537, 538, 1844 WL 4104, *1 (Ill. Dec Term 1844)

514 Jackson ex dem. McConnell v. Wilcox, 1 Scam. 344, 344, 2 Ill. 344, 381, 1837 WL 2358, *21 (Ill. Jun Term 1837)

515 Daggett v. Bonewitz, 7 N.E. 900, 901, 107 Ind. 276, 276 (Ind. Jun 22, 1886)

516 State v. Tuesburg Land Co., 109 N.E. 530, 536, 61 Ind.App. 555, 555 (Ind.App. Jun 25, 1915) (NO. 8794)

517 Burlington & M.R.R. Co. v. Clingman, 43 Iowa 306, 307, 1876 WL 536, *1 (Iowa Jun 07, 1876)

518 Waters v. Bush, 42 Iowa 255, 256, 1875 WL 575, *1 (Iowa Dec 29, 1875)

519 Morrow v. Weed, 4 Clarke 77, 77, 4 Iowa 77, 81, 1856 WL 175, *2, 66 Am.Dec. 122, 122 (Iowa Aug20, 1856)

520 Arnold v. Grimes, 2 Greene 77, 83, 1849 WL 159, *5 (Iowa May Term 1849)

521 McGannen v. Straightledge, 14 P. 452, 454, 37 Kan. 87, 87 (Kan. Jul 09, 1887)

522 Stout v. Hyatt, 13 Kan. 232, 238, 1874 WL 720, *3 (Kan. Jul Term 1874)

523 Land Grant Ry. & Trust Co. v. Davis County Com'rs, 6 Kan. 256, 265, 1870 WL 484, *5 (Kan. Jul Term 1870)

524 Douglas County Com'rs v. Union Pac. Ry. Co., 5 Kan. 615, 619, 1870 WL 558, *2 (Kan. Apr Term 1870)

525 McAlpin v. Henshaw, 6 Kan. 176, 181, 1870 WL 475, *3 (Kan. Jan Term 1870)

526 Burnes v. City of Atchison, 2 Kan. 454, 461, 1864 WL 455, *4 (Kan. Jan Term 1864)

527 Laidley v. Cummings, 7 Ky.L.Rptr. 616, 616, 83 Ky. 606, 607, 1886 WL 2020, *1 (Ky. Feb 11, 1886)

528 Riggio v. McNeely, 65 So. 552, 553, 135 La. 391, 396 (La. May 11, 1914) (NO. 20008)

529 Barrow v. Wilson, 38 La.Ann. 209, 210, 1886 WL 4296, *1 (La. Mar 1886) (NO. 9502)

530 Marks v. Martin, 27 La.Ann. 527, 528, 1875 WL 265, *1 (La. Jul 1875) (NO. 580)

531 Mechanics' & Traders' Bank v. Union Bank, 25 La.Ann. 387, 389, 1873 WL 100, *2 (La. May 1873) (NO. 2891)

532 Lajoie v. Milliken, 136 N.E. 419, 424, 242 Mass. 508, 523 (Mass. Sep 25, 1922)



































533 McElroy v. Swart, 24 N.W. 766, 766, 57 Mich. 500, 500 (Mich. Sep 29, 1885)

534 In re Selby, 6 Mich. 193, 197, 1859 WL 5160, *2 (Mich. Jan 11, 1859)

535 Stockton v. Williams, 1 Doug. 546, 552+, 1845 WL 3093, *5+ (Mich. Jan Term 1845)

536 Scott v. Detroit Young Men's Society's Lessee, 1 Doug. 119, 132, 1843 WL 1220, *8 (Mich. Jan Term 1843)

537 Federal Land Bank of St. Paul v. Crookston Trust Co., 230 N.W. 797, 800, 180 Minn. 319, 324 (Minn. May 09, 1930) (NO. 27746)

538 Russell v. Lowth, 21 Minn. 167, 170, 1874 WL 3777, *3, 18 Am.Rep. 389, 389 (Minn. Dec 17, 1874)

539 Lee v. O'Shaughnessy, 20 Minn. 173, 159, 1873 WL 8816, *1, 20 Gil. 157, 157 (Minn. Apr Term 1873)

540 Warren County v. Catchings, 46 So. 709, 710, 94 Miss. 18, 18 (Miss. Jun 22, 1908) (NO. 13,374)

541 Stevenson's Heirs v. McReary, 12 Smedes & M. 9, 9, 20 Miss. 9, 30, 1849 WL 2230, *13, 51 Am.Dec. 102, 102 (Miss.Err. & App. Jan Term 1849)

542 Wray v. Doe, 10 Smedes & M. 452, 452+, 18 Miss. 452, 459+, 1848 WL 2000, *4+ (Miss.Err. & App. Jan Term 1848)

543 Niles v. Anderson, 5 Howard 365, 365, 6 Miss. 365, 368, 1841 WL 1839, *3 (Miss.Err. & App. Jan Term 1841)

544 De Lassus v. Winn, 74 S.W. 635, 636, 174 Mo. 636, 636 (Mo. Mar 31, 1903)

545 Cummings v. Powell, 20 S.W. 486, 487 (Mo. Nov 15, 1892)

546 Prior v. Scott, 87 Mo. 303, 305, 1885 WL 7975, *1 (Mo. Oct Term 1885)

547 Clarkson v. Buchanan, 53 Mo. 563, 566, 1873 WL 8015, *2 (Mo. Oct Term 1873)

548 Shepley v. Cowan, 52 Mo. 559, 561, 1873 WL 107, *1 (Mo. Mar Term 1873)

549 Glasgow v. Lindell's Heirs, 50 Mo. 60, 65, 1872 WL 7692, *3 (Mo. Mar Term 1872)

550 Barton County v. Walser, 47 Mo. 189, 191, 1871 WL 7513, *2 (Mo. Jan Term 1871)

551 St. Louis Public Schools v. Walker, 40 Mo. 383, 404, 1867 WL 4847, *13 (Mo. Mar Term 1867)

552 Eberle v. Board, etc., of St. Louis Public Schools, 11 Mo. 247, 256, 1848 WL 3942, *8 (Mo. Mar Term 1848)

553 West v. Minneapolis Mining & Smelting Co., 217 P. 342, 344, 68 Mont. 253, 253 (Mont. Jul 11, 1923) (NO. 5203)

554 Horsky v. Moran, 53 P. 1064, 1067, 21 Mont. 345, 345 (Mont. Jul 25, 1898)

555 Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Majors, 2 P. 322, 325, 5 Mont. 111, 111 (Mont.Terr. Jan 09, 1884)

556 Meyendorf v. Frohner, 3 Mont. 282, 314, 1879 WL 7171, *17 (Mont.Terr. Jan Term 1879)

557 Eaton v. Badger, 33 N.H. 228, 233+, 1856 WL 2717, *5+ (N.H. 1856)

558 Dugan v. Montoya, 173 P. 118, 121+, 24 N.M. 102, 102+ (N.M. Feb 16, 1918) (NO. 2098)

559 U.S. Trust Co. of New York v. Blake, 137 N.E. 327, 330, 234 N.Y. 273, 283 (N.Y. Nov 21, 1922)

560 Garcia v. Callender, 26 N.E. 283, 284, 80 Sickels 307, 125 N.Y. 307, 311 (N.Y. Jan 13, 1891)

561 Sipple v. State, 16 Abb. N. Cas. 429, 429, 1 N.E. 892, 892, 54 Sickels 284, 284, 99 N.Y. 284, 284 (N.Y. Jun 09, 1885)

562 Risley v. Phenix Bank, 38 Sickels 318, 83 N.Y. 318, 337, 1881 WL 1593, *1593 (N.Y. Jan 18, 1881)

563 Ferguson v. Crawford, 25 Sickels 253, 253, 70 N.Y. 253, 259, 1877 WL 12037, *5, 26 Am.Rep. 589, 589 (N.Y. 1877)

564 Buffalo & S.L.R. Co. v. Erie County Sup'rs, 3 Sickels 93, 93, 48 N.Y. 93, 99, 1871 WL 9894, *4 (N.Y. 1871)


































565 Holbrook v. Orgler, 49 How. Pr. 289, 295, 8 Jones & S. 33, 33, 40 N.Y.Super.Ct. 33, 33 (N.Y.Super. 1875)

566 Merritt v. Merritt, 19 N.Y.S.2d 85, 87, 259 A.D. 242, 244 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept. Apr 05, 1940)

567 Mawhinney v. Millbrook Woolen Mills, 172 N.Y.S. 461, 464, 105 Misc. 99, 105 (N.Y.Sup. Nov 11, 1918)

568 Bradley v. Bauder, 1880 WL 58, *1, 36 Ohio St. 28, 29, 38 Am.Rep. 547, 547 (Ohio Jan Term 1880)

569 Bowman v. Western Union Tel. Co., 31 Ohio Dec. 516, 521, 23 Ohio N.P.(N.S.) 118, 118, 1920 WL 600, *3 (Ohio Com.Pl. Mar 27, 1920)

570 Lowe v. Dickson, 236 P. 399, 401, 108 Okla. 241, 241, 1924 OK 1103, 1103 (Okla. Dec 09, 1924) (NO. 14001)

571 Mozley v. Coleman, 212 P. 431, 436, 88 Okla. 118, 118, 1923 OK 29, 29 (Okla. Jan 16, 1923) (NO. 10705) (in dissent)

572 National Sur. Co. v. S.H. Hanson Builders' Supply Co., 165 P. 1136, 1138, 64 Okla. 59, 59, 1917 OK 222, 222 (Okla. May 15, 1917) (NO. 6876)

573 Enid & A. Ry. Co. v. Kephart, 91 P. 1049, 1053, 19 Okla. 1, 1, 1906 OK 81, 81 (Okla.Terr. Sep 06, 1906)

574 Hough v. Porter, 98 P. 1083, 1090, 51 Or. 318, 388 (Or. Jan 05, 1909)

575 Appeal of Ulshafer, 1883 WL 13642, *3, 1 Walk. 457, 460 (Pa. 1883)

576 Killpatrick v. Frost, 2 Grant 168, 182, 1858 WL 7626, *11 (Pa. 1858)

577 Pattison v. Wilbur, 10 R.I. 448, 451, 1873 WL 3543, *3, 12 N.B.R. 193, 193 (R.I. Mar Term 1873)

578 Angell v. Robbins, 4 R.I. 493, 501, 1857 WL 2363, *5 (R.I. Mar Term 1857)

579 McCreery v. Davis, 22 S.E. 178, 184, 44 S.C. 195, 195, 51 Am.St.Rep. 794, 794, 28 L.R.A. 655, 655(S.C. Apr 20, 1895)

580 Bernardy v. Colonial & U.S. Mortg. Co., 98 N.W. 166, 171, 17 S.D. 637, 637, 106 Am.St.Rep. 791, 791 (S.D. Feb 03, 1904)

581 Morris v. Creed, 58 Tenn. 155, 159, 1872 WL 4006, *2, 11 Heisk. 155, 155 (Tenn. Sep Term 1872)

582 Gullett v. O'Connor, 54 Tex. 408, 414, 1881 WL 9702, *3 (Tex. 1881) (NO. 1250)

583 French v. Grenet, 57 Tex. 273, 276, 1881 WL 4053, *3 (Tex. 1881) (NO. 4288)

584 Fannin County v. Riddle, 51 Tex. 360, 368, 1879 WL 7679, *6 (Tex. 1879)

585 State v. Galveston City Co., 38 Tex. 12, 27, 1873 WL 7355, *10 (Tex. 1873)

586 Houston Tap & B. Ry. Co. v. Randolph, 24 Tex. 317, 328, 1859 WL 6432, *9 (Tex. 1859)

587 Horan v. Wahrenberger, 9 Tex. 313, 321, 1852 WL 4056, *5, 58 Am.Dec. 145, 145 (Tex. 1852)

588 Jones v. Menard, 1 Tex. 771, 774, 1847 WL 3504, *4 (Tex. Dec Term 1847)

589 Sutherland v. De Leon, 1 Tex. 250, 296, 1846 WL 3617, *29, 46 Am.Dec. 100, 100 (Tex. Dec Term 1846)

590 Ferry v. Street, 11 P. 571, 576, 4 Utah 521, 521 (Utah Terr. Jul 22, 1886)

591 Curry v. Wilson, 107 P. 367, 368, 57 Wash. 509, 513 (Wash. Mar 01, 1910)

592 Samish Boom Co. v. Callvert, 68 P. 367, 368, 27 Wash. 611, 613 (Wash. Mar 12, 1902)

593 Brothertown Realty Corporation v. Reedal, 227 N.W. 390, 391, 200 Wis. 465, 465 (Wis. Nov 05, 1929)

594 Miller v. Donahue, 71 N.W. 900, 904, 96 Wis. 498, 498 (Wis. Jun 11, 1897)

595 Lamont v. Stimson, 5 Wis. 443, 446, 1856 WL 3887, *3 (Wis. 1856)

596 Lamont v. Stimson, 3 Wis. 545, 554, 1854 WL 3455, *6, 62 Am.Dec. 696, 696 (Wis. Jun Term 1854)

597 Henen v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 17 W.Va. 881, 887, 1881 WL 3802, *3802 (W.Va. May 07, 1881)



































Administrative Decisions (U.S.A.)

Interior Board of Land Appeals Decisions

598 PATHFINDER MINES CORP., Gower Federal Service (MIN) 61(1983) (1983)

599 DOUGLAS E. SMITH, Gower Federal Service (O&G) 39(1983) (1982)

600 MARY MARGARET WEAR ET AL., Gower Federal Services (MISC) 152(1982) (1982)

601 DOLORES OLSEN AND WESLEY E. MACE, ET AL., Gower Federal Service (MIN) 31(1980) (1980)

602 STARLING BROKERS ET AL., Gower Federal Service - CON 108 (1972) (1972)

U.S. Attorney General Opinions

603 38 U.S. Op. Atty. Gen. 445, VALIDITY OF EXECUTIVE ORDER AUTHORIZING THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE TO ACQUIRE LAND FOR WILDLIFE CONSERVATION PURPOSES (1936)

604 37 U.S. Op. Atty. Gen. 395, CLASSIFICATION OF ARMY OFFICERS (1934)

605 36 U.S. Op. Atty. Gen. 500, APPLICATION FOR PATENT TO LODE MINING CLAIM ON MOLATE ISLAND, CALIFORNIA (1931)

606 29 U.S. Op. Atty. Gen. 205, PORTO RICO-TRANSFER OF NAVAL STATIONS. (1911)

607 28 U.S. Op. Atty. Gen. 424, FOREST RESERVES-ENTRY OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS. (1910)

608 26 U.S. Op. Atty. Gen. 91, SUBIG BAY NAVAL RESERVATION-JURISDICTION OF THE NAVY DEPARTMENT. (1906)

609 19 U.S. Op. Atty. Gen. 370, FORT MISSOULA MILITARY RESERVATION. (1889)

610 17 U.S. Op. Atty. Gen. 397, CASE OF W. W. ARMSTRONG. (1882)

611 17 U.S. Op. Atty. Gen. 258, INDIAN RESERVATIONS. (1882)

612 10 U.S. Op. Atty. Gen. 469, INTERNAL REVENUE DISTRICTS. (1862)

613 5 U.S. Op. Atty. Gen. 578, PUBLIC LANDS. (1852)

State Administrative Materials (U.S.A.)

614 2009 Mich. OAG No. 7229, Honorable Michelle A. McManus Honorable Jason Allen (2009)

615 CLIFFORD ERNEST TAYLOR, JR., COMPLAINANT v. DON DAVIS, ASSESSOR, JASPER COUNTY, MISSOURI, RESPONDENT, 2008 WL 787202 (Mo.St.Tax.Com.), *3 (2008)

616 60 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 162, THE HONORABLE JOHN A. NEJEDLY HONORABLE L.A. MORAN (1977)





















Other Administrative Materials (U.S.A.)

617 Ownership of Submerged Lands in Northern Alaska in Light of Utah Division of State Lands v. United States, 100 Decisions of the Department of the Interior 103+ (1992)

618 STATE SELECTIONS OF ONSHORE LANDS UNDERLYING NAVIGABLE WATERS IN THE GEOGRAPHIC AREA OF REVOKED PUBLIC LAND ORDER 82, 91 Decisions of the Department of the Interior 67 (1983)

619 Pathfinder Mines Corp., 90 Decisions of the Department of the Interior 10 (1983)

620 NORTHWAY NATIVES, INC., 87 Decisions of the Department of the Interior 603+ (1980)

621 DOYON, LIMITED, 87 Decisions of the Department of the Interior 480+ (1980)

622 A. W. SCHUNK, 81 Decisions of the Department of the Interior 401+ (1974)

623 STATE OF UTAH, 70 Decisions of the Department of the Interior 27 (1963)

624 CAN A PARTNERSHIP COMPOSED PARTLY OF MINORS BE A RECOGNIZED APPLICANT FOR OIL AND GAS LEASES, 64 Decisions of the Department of the Interior 351 (1957)

625 APPLICABILITY OF STATE COMMUNITY PROPERTY LAWS TO FEDERAL OIL AND GAS LEASES WITH RESPECT TO ACREAGE LIMITATIONS, 64 Decisions of the Department of the Interior 44 (1957)

626 SCHOOL SECTIONS RESERVED FOR THE TERRITORY OF ALASKA BY THE ACT OF MARCH 4, 1915 (38 STAT. 1214), AS AMENDED (48 U. S. C. SEC. 353), AND LIEU SELECTIONS MADE UNDER THAT ACT, 64 Decisions of the Department of the Interior 27 (1957)

627 UNITED STATES v. R. G. CROCKER ET AL., 60 Decisions of the Department of the Interior 285 (1949)

628 DAVID B. MORGAN, ASSIGNEE OF SOLDIERS' ADDITIONAL HOMESTEAD RIGHTS, 60 Decisions of the Department of the Interior 266 (1948)

629 FUNCTIONS OF OIL AND GAS DIVISION, 59 Decisions of the Department of the Interior 552 (1947)

630 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 59 Decisions of the Department of the Interior 402+ (1947)

631 J. C. ALDRICH, 59 Decisions of the Department of the Interior 176+ (1946)

632 LOYAL N. MASSEY LEONA MASSEY, 59 Decisions of the Department of the Interior 81 (1945)

633 DELEGATION BY THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR IN THE FIELD OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, 58 Decisions of the Department of the Interior 499 (1943)

634 AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO WITHDRAW PUBLIC LANDS, 57 Decisions of the Department of the Interior 331 (1941)

635 OBLIGATION OF THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FOR DAMAGES TO LANDS OF CHEMEHUEVI INDIANS, 57 Decisions of the Department of the Interior 87 (1939)

636 TOWL ET AL. v. KELLY AND BLANKENSHIP, 54 Decisions of the Department of the Interior 455 (1934)

637 NATIONAL CEMETERIES WITHIN INDIAN RESERVATIONS, 52 Public Lands Decisions 210 (1927)

638 EFFECT OF AN EXECUTIVE WITHDRAWAL UPON TIMBER AND STONE ENTRIES PRIOR TO SUBMISSION OF FINAL PROOF AND PAYMENT OF PURCHASE MONEYS, 52 Public
























Lands Decisions 102 (1927)

639 RUST-OWEN LUMBER COMPANY (ON REHEARING), 50 Public Lands Decisions 678 (1924)

640 Donald C. Wheeler, 48 Public Lands Decisions 94 (1921)

641 CENTRAL PACIFIC RY. CO., 45 Public Lands Decisions 502 (1916)

642 JULIA E. WARD ET AL, 41 Public Lands Decisions 634 (1913)

643 JOHN H. MASON, 41 Public Lands Decisions 361 (1912)

644 39 Public Lands Decisions 411 (1910)

645 JOHN M. KANE, 37 Public Lands Decisions 277 (1908)

646 ANDREW J. BILLAN, 36 Public Lands Decisions 334 (1908)

647 STATE OF LOUISIANA, 33 Public Lands Decisions 13+ (1904)

648 STATE OF MINNESOTA, 32 Public Lands Decisions 325 (1903)

649 A. WILBUR CATLIN, 32 Public Lands Decisions 300 (1903)

650 LEAMING v. MCKENNA, 31 Public Lands Decisions 318 (1902)

651 HARKRADER ET AL. v. GOLDSTEIN, 31 Public Lands Decisions 87 (1901)

652 J. M. LONGNECKER (ON REVIEW), 30 Public Lands Decisions 611 (1901)

653 STATE OF LOUISIANA, 30 Public Lands Decisions 472 (1901)

654 JACK B. BAKER, 29 Public Lands Decisions 563 (1900)

655 BARBOUR v. WILSON ET AL (ON REVIEW), 28 Public Lands Decisions 61 (1899)

656 NORTHERN PACIFIC R. R. CO., 27 Public Lands Decisions 505 (1898)

657 REMLINGER v. MORELAND, 21 Public Lands Decisions 331 (1895)

658 PUYALLUP ALLOTMENTS, 20 Public Lands Decisions 157 (1895)

659 MATHER ET AL. v. HACKLEY'S HEIRS (ON REVIEW), 19 Public Lands Decisions 48 (1894)

660 UNITED STATES v. NORTHERN PACIFIC R. R. CO., 18 Public Lands Decisions 290 (1894)

661 HYDE ET AL. v. WARREN ET AL., 14 Public Lands Decisions 576 (1892)

662 THUNIE v. ST. PAUL, MINNEAPOLIS AND MANITOBA RY. CO., 14 Public Lands Decisions 545+ (1892)

663 STEBBINS v. CROKE, 14 Public Lands Decisions 498 (1892)

664 OREGON CENTRAL R. R. CO. v. JONES, 14 Public Lands Decisions 283 (1892)

665 BRITTON WILLIAMS, 14 Public Lands Decisions 3 (1892)

666 JOHN W. WEBER, 12 Public Lands Decisions 563 (1891)

667 STATE OF OHIO (ON REVIEW), 10 Public Lands Decisions 394+ (1890)

668 FRANK BURNS, 10 Public Lands Decisions 365 (1890)

669 NORTHERN PAC. R. R. CO. v. MARTIN, 6 Public Lands Decisions 657 (1888)

670 Indian Allotments--Old Columbia Reservation, 6 Public Lands Decisions 43 (1887)

671 MILTON TOWNSITE v. GANN, 4 Public Lands Decisions 584 (1886)



































672 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 3 Public Lands Decisions 327 (1885)

673 DAVID P. LITZ, 3 Public Lands Decisions 181 (1884)

674 WEIMER ET AL v. ROSS, 3 Public Lands Decisions 129 (1884)

675 PERKINS v. CENTRAL PAC. R. R. CO., 1 Public Lands Decisions 336+ (1882)

676 ATLANTIC AND PAC. R. R. CO. v. FISHER, 1 Public Lands Decisions 392 (1882)

677 LEWIS ET AL. v. TOWN OF SEATTLE ET AL., 1 Public Lands Decisions 497 (1881)

Secondary Sources (U.S.A.)

678 Suit against public officer to recover possession of property as suit against state or Federal government, 160 A.L.R. 332 (1946)

679 2 Patton and Palomar on Land Titles s 293, Entries, receipts, and certificates (2010)

680 Tiffany Real Property s 949, Patents (2009)

681 Am. Jur. 2d Constitutional Law s 308, Executive power (2010)

682 Am. Jur. 2d Military and Civil Defense s 17, Organization (2010)

683 CJS Motions and Orders s 75, Void and voidable orders (2010)

684 CJS Public Lands s 26, What law governs (2010)

685 CJS Public Lands s 82, How reservation accomplished (2010)

686 CJS United States s 49, Generally (2010)

687 TX Jur. 3d Constitutional Law s 65, Power over federal lands and federal enclaves within state (2010)

688 CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE: ARE CHANGES TO WATER LAW COMING?, 11 NO. 2 ABA Water Resources Committee Newsl. 2, 3 (2009)

689 JUDICIAL DEFERENCE TO ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION -- A REVISIONIST HISTORY, 43 Admin. L. Rev. 197, 245 (1991)

690 THE STRUGGLE FOR ALASKA'S SUBMERGED LAND, 5 Alaska L. Rev. 69, 132 (1988)

691 PUBLIC RIGHTS AND THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL POWER: FROM MURRAY'S LESSEE THROUGH CROWELL TO SCHOR, 35 Buff. L. Rev. 765, 869+ (1986)

692 RETHEORIZING THE PRESUMPTION AGAINST IMPLIED REPEALS, 92 Cal. L. Rev. 487, 532(2004)

693 PERPETUAL CONSERVATION: ACCOMPLISHING THE GOAL THROUGH PREEMPTIVE FEDERAL EASEMENT PROGRAMS, 43 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 401, 489 (1993)

694 THE NEW FICTION: DRED SCOTT AND THE LANGUAGE OF JUDICIAL AUTHORITY, 82 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 177, 208 (2007)

695 SUING THE PRESIDENT: NONSTATUTORY REVIEW REVISITED, 97 Colum. L. Rev. 1612, 1709 (1997)

696 LET US GO BACK AND STAND UPON THE CONSTITUTION: FEDERAL-STATE RELATIONS IN SCOTT v. SANDFORD, 90 Colum. L. Rev. 192, 225 (1990)

697 THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT AND STATE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY: A REINTERPRETATION, 83 Colum. L. Rev. 1889, 2005 (1983)

698 THE PROPERTY POWER, FEDERALISM, AND THE EQUAL FOOTING DOCTRINE, 80 Colum. L. Rev. 817, 839 (1980)





























699 SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY AND SPECIFIC RELIEF AGAINST FEDERAL OFFICERS, 55 Colum.L. Rev. 73, 83 (1955)

700 PRESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENTOF THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE: THE NOT-SO-UNITARY EXECUTIVE, 51 Duke L.J. 963, 1013 (2001)

701 MAKING AGENCIES FOLLOW ORDERS: JUDICIAL REVIEW OF AGENCY VIOLATIONS OFEXECUTIVE ORDER 12,291, 1983 Duke L.J. 285, 353 (1983)

702 A COMPARATIVE GUIDE TO THE WESTERN STATES' PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINES: PUBLIC VALUES, PRIVATE RIGHTS, AND THE EVOLUTION TOWARD AN ECOLOGICAL PUBLIC TRUST, 37 Ecology L.Q. 53, 197 (2010)

703 THE LAW OF PUBLIC RANGELAND MANAGEMENT I: THE EXTENT AND DISTRIBUTIONOF FEDERAL POWER, 12 Envtl. L. 535, 621 (1982)

704 JUDICIAL REVIEW OF CONGRESS BEFORE THE CIVIL WAR, 97 Geo. L.J. 1257, 1330 (2009)

705 GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE WITH PRIVATE INTERESTS IN PUBLIC RESOURCES, 11 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev. 1, 75+ (1987)

706 EX PARTE YOUNG DOCTRINE., 111 Harv. L. Rev. 269, 279+ (1997)

707 SUITS AGAINST GOVERNMENT OFFICERS AND THE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY DOCTRINE, 59 Harv. L. Rev. 1060, 1086 (1946)

708 SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY IN SUITS TO ENJOIN THE ENFORCEMENT OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATION, 50 Harv. L. Rev. 956, 963 (1937)

709 THE KING IS DEAD, LONG LIVE THE KING! THE COURT-CREATED AMERICAN CONCEPT OF IMMUNITY: THE NEGATION OF EQUALITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY UNDER LAW, 24 Hofstra L. Rev. 981, 1067+ (1996)

710 IN RE SEALED CASE- BRIEF ON BEHALF OF AMICUS CURIAE UNITED STATES, 16 Hofstra L. Rev. 97, 130+ (1987)

711 GRAZING RIGHTS ON PUBLIC LANDS: WAYNE HAGE COMPLAINS OF A TAKING, 30 Idaho L. Rev. 603, 629+ (1994)

712 FROM PENS TO PIXELS: TEXT-MEDIA ISSUES IN PROMULGATING, ARCHIVING, AND USING JUDICIAL OPINIONS, 4 J. App. Prac. & Process 353, 416 (2002)

713 THE ORDINARY HIGH WATER BOUNDARY ON FRESHWATER LAKES AND STREAMS: ORIGIN, THEORY, AND CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS, 6 J. Land Use & Envtl. L. 205, 240+ (1991)

714 THIS LAND IS OUR LAND: RANCHERS SEEK PRIVATE RIGHTS IN THE PUBLIC RANGELANDS, 21 J. Land Resources & Envtl. L. 461, 487+ (2001)

715 ADMINISTRATIVE STATUTORY INTERPRETATION IN THE ANTEBELLUM REPUBLIC, 2009 Mich. St. L. Rev 7, 49 (2009)

716 KIMMEL, SHORT, MCVAY: CASE STUDIES IN EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY, LAW AND THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS OF MILITARY COMMANDERS, 156 Mil. L. Rev. 52, 199 (1998)

717 REFUTING THE "CLASSIC' PROPERTY CLAUSE THEORY, 63 N.C. L. Rev. 617, 658+ (1985)

718 PRIOR APPROPRIATION AND THE PROPERTY CLAUSE: A DIALOGUE OF ACCOMODATION, 71 Or. L. Rev. 381, 408+ (1992)

719 A COMPARATIVE GUIDE TO THE EASTERN PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINES: CLASSIFICATIONS OF STATES, PROPERTY RIGHTS, AND STATE SUMMARIES, 16 Penn St. Envtl. L. Rev. 1, 113 (2007)

720 INTERPOSITION-WILD WEST WATER STYLE, 17 Stan. L. Rev. 1, 38+ (1964)

721 THE POWER OF CONGRESS UNDER THE PROPERTY CLAUSE: A POTENTIAL CHECK ON THE EFFECT OF THE CHADHA DECISION ON PUBLIC LAND LEGISLATION, 6 Pub. Land

























L. Rev. 65, 89+ (1985)

722 THE CONSTITUTION IN THE SUPREME COURT: THE PROTECTION OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS, 1889-1910, 52 U. Chi. L. Rev. 324, 388 (1985)

723 THE PROPERTY CLAUSE: AS IF BIODIVERSITY MATTERED, 75 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1195, 1240+ (2004)

724 GRANITE ROCK: INSTITUTIONAL COMPETENCE AND THE STATE ROLE IN FEDERAL LAND PLANNING, 59 U. Colo. L. Rev. 475, 516 (1988)

725 WILD BURROS, FENCES, AND ARPA: VIEWING THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES PROTECTION ACT AS PROPERTY CLAUSE LEGISLATION, 5 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 109, 127 (2002)

726 NAKED LAND TRANSFERS AND AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT, 53 Vand. L. Rev. 73, 89+ (2000)

727 ADAPTING TO CLIMATE CHANGE: THE POTENTIAL ROLE OF STATE COMMON-LAW PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINES, 34 Vt. L. Rev. 781, 853 (2010)

728 SEPARATION OF POWERS AND THE SEPARATE TREATMENT OF CONTRACT CLAIMS AGAINST THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, 43 Vill. L. Rev. 155, 218 (1998)

729 VOLS. 3-4 THE OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES DEVISE HISTORY OF THE SUPREME COURTOF THE UNITED STATES: THE MARSHALL COURT AND CULTURAL CHANGE, 1815-35. BY G. EDWARD WHITE. MACMILLAN PUBLISHING CO., NEW YORK, 1988, pp. xxi, 1009,, 75 Va. L. Rev. 1429, 1460 (1989)

730 SHOWDOWN AT THE OK CORRAL-WYOMING'S CHALLENGE TO U.S. SUPREMACY ON FEDERAL SPLIT ESTATE LANDS, 6 Wyo. L. Rev. 31, 51 (2006)

731 RECOVERING AMERICAN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: FEDERALIST FOUNDATIONS, 1787-1801, 115 Yale L.J. 1256, 1344 (2006)

732 THE EXERCISE OF THE PARDONING POWER IN THE PHILIPPINES, 12 Yale L.J. 405, 409 (1903)

733 THE MISSION OF GOV. TAFT TO THE VATICAN, 12 Yale L.J. 1, 7 (1902)

734 CROCI Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education Materials 2-1, DEEDS (2008)

735 38056 National Business Institute 7, TAX SALES UNDER THE REAL ESTATE TAX SALE LAW (2007)

736 RELATIVE PROPERTY INTERESTS ON THE FEDERAL OIL AND GAS LEASE, 2008 NO. 1 Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation Institute PAPER NO. 13B (2008)

737 CONFLICTING JURISDICTIONS OF FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES: THE FEDERAL PREEMPTION DOCTRINE, 31 Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation Institute 1 (1985) (1985)

738 MINERAL OWNERSHIP BENEATH RAILROAD RIGHTS-OF-WAY, 31 Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation Institute 17 (1985) (1985)

739 WATT'S UP FOR PATENTING? Excess Reserves and Other Mysteries, 29 Rocky Mountain MineralLaw Foundation Institute 8 (1983) (1983)

Court Documents

Appellate Court Documents (U.S.A.)




















Appellate Petitions, Motions and Filings

740 State of Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, 2008 WL 2323310, *2323310+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Jun 02, 2008) Amicus Brief of the States of Washington, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, ... (NO. 07-1372) "

741 Advanced Cardiac Solutions, P.C. v. Central Admixture Pharmacy Services, Inc., 2007 WL 2323453,*2323453 (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Aug 14, 2007) Petition for Writ of Certiorari with Appendix (NO. 07-192)

742 Seneca Nation of Indians v. State of New York, 2006 WL 160087, *160087+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Jan 17, 2006) Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (NO. 05-905)

743 Carl Edwin FAGERMAN & Bertha Louise Fagerman, Petitioner(s), v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENTOF TRANSPORTATION, Respondent(s)., 2003 WL 22428977, *22428977+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. Aug 28, 2003) Petition for Writ of Certiorari (NO. 03-378)

744 Utah v. Tribe, 1986 WL 766674, *766674+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (U.S. May 05, 1986) Petition (NO. 85-1821)

745 SENECA NATION OF INDIANS, Plaintiff-Appellant, Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant, United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant, v. The Stateof New York, et al., Defendants-Appellees, Moore Business Forms Corp, individually and as a representative of a class of landowners similarly situated, Defendant-Appellee-Cross Appellant, George Pataki, Governor, State of New York, Bernadette, 2005 WL 3949275, *3949275 (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (2nd Cir. Jan 07, 2005) Petition for Rehearing and for Rehearing En Banc of the Seneca Nation of Indians and the Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians (NO. 02-6185(L))

746 SENECA NATION OF INDIANS, Plaintiff-Appellant, Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant, United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants-Appellees, Moore Business Forms Corp, individually and as a representative of a class of landowners similarly situated, Defendant-Appellee-Cross Appellant, George Pataki, Governor, State of New York, Bernadette, 2005 WL 3966017, *3966017 (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (2nd Cir. Jan 07, 2005) Petition for Rehearing and for Rehearing En Banc of the Seneca Nation of Indians and the Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians (NO. 02-6185(L))

747 FIDELITY EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION CO., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants-Appellees., 2007 WL 984192, *984192+ (Appellate Petition, Motion and Filing) (9th Cir. Jan 16, 2007) Brief of Appellees United States of America, et al. (NO. 06-35307)

Appellate Briefs

748 United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 2009 WL 3825875, *3825875+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Nov 12, 2009) Reply Brief for Petitioner (NO. 08-1134)

749 United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 2009 WL 3327229, *3327229+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Oct 13, 2009) Brief for Respondent (NO. 08-1134)

750 United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 2009 WL 2841180, *2841180+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Aug 28, 2009) Brief for Petitioner (NO. 08-1134)

751 Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 2009 WL 2406375, *2406375 (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Aug 03, 2009) Brief of %iAmicus Curiae%i The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence In Support of Petitioners (NO. 08-861)














752 State of Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, 2008 WL 5236222, *5236222+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Dec 11, 2008) Amicus Brief of the States of Washington, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, ... (NO. 07-1372) "

753 State of Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians, 1998 WL 665665, *665665+ (AppellateBrief) (U.S. Sep 25, 1998) BRIEF FOR RESPONDENTS ST. CROIX CHIPPEWA INDIANS OF WISCONSIN, SOKAOGON CHIPPEWA COMMUNITY AND LAC COURTE OREILLES BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA INDIANS OF WISCONSIN (NO. 97-1337) "

754 Alexia MORRISON, Independent Counsel, appellant, v. Theodore B. OLSON, et al., 1988 WL 1031600, *1031600+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Apr 08, 1988) Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Appellees (NO. 87-1279)

755 PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY and CINQUE BAMBINI PARTNERSHIP, Petitioners, v. State of Mississippi, and Saga Petroleum U.S., Inc., Respondents., 1987 WL 881386, *881386+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jul 11, 1987) Brief of the States of California, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas, and Washington as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents (NO. 86-870)

756 State of Utah, by and through its Division of State Lands, Petitioner, v. United States of America, et al., 1987 WL 880923, *880923+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Feb 06, 1987) Brief for the Respondents (NO. 85-1772)

757 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ex rel. State Lands Commission, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant., 1982 WL 608584, *608584+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Mar 15, 1982) Brief of Amici Curiae States of Washington, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, New Mexico and Oregon (NO. 89, ORIGINAL)

758 Richard John MCCARTY, Appellant, v. Patricia Ann MCCARTY, Appellee., 1981 WL 390154, *390154+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jan 1981) Brief Amici Curiae on Behalf of Certain Members ofCongress and Organizations (In Support of Appellee) (NO. 80-5) "

759 Roy Tibbals WILSON, et al., Petitioners, v. OMAHA INDIAN TRIBE and the United States of America. State of Iowa, et al., Petitioners, v. OMAHA INDIAN TRIBE and the United States of America., 1979 WL 199253, *199253+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Feb 23, 1979) Brief for the United States (NO. 78-160, 78-161)

760 STATE OF OREGON, Acting by and through the State Land Board, Petitioner and Respondent, v. CORVALLIS SAND AND GRAVEL COMPANY, an Oregon corporation, Respondent and Petitioner., 1976 WL 181297, *181297+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Apr 08, 1976) Brief of Utah and New Mexico as Amici Curiae (NO. 75-567, 75-577()) "

761 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner, v. Richard M. NIXON, President of the United States et al., Respondents. Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, Cross-Petitioner, v. United States of America, Respondent., 1973 WL 159435, *159435 (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jul 1973) Reply Brief for the Respondent, Cross-Petitioner Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States (NO. 73-1766, 73-1834)

762 Choctaw Nation v. Oklahoma, 1969 WL 120138, *120138+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jul 22, 1969) The Brief of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations (NO. 41, 59)

763 Wallis v. Pan American Petroleum Co., 1966 WL 100488, *100488+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Feb 1966) Reply Brief Of Wallis. (NO. 341) "

764 Wallis v. Pan American Petroleum Corp., 1966 WL 100486, *100486+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jan 31, 1966) Brief for Patrick A. McKenna (NO. 341) "

765 Wallis v. Pan American Petroleum Corp., 1965 WL 115426, *115426+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Dec 20, 1965) Brief for Floyd A. Wallis. (NO. 341)
















766 Hawaii v. Bell, 1962 WL 94550, *94550+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Aug 21, 1962) Plaintiff's Reply Brief (NO. 12, ORIGINAL)

767 Hawaii v. Bell, 1962 WL 94551, *94551+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Apr 19, 1962) Brief in Support ofMotion for Leave to File Complaint (NO. 12, ORIGINAL) "

768 Benz v. New York State Thruway Authority, 1961 WL 101870, *101870+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Dec 07, 1961) Brief for the Petitioner (NO. 234)

769 Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 1950 WL 78458, *78458+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Oct 03, 1950) Brief for Respondents (NO. 8)

770 Kennedy v. Silas Mason Co., 1948 WL 47461, *47461+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Apr 16, 1948) Brief Amici Curiae (NO. 590)

771 U.S. v. Wyoming, 1947 WL 44122, *44122+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Mar 31, 1947) Brief of Defendants, State of Wyoming and the Ohio Oil Company. (NO. 10ORIGINAL) "

772 U.S. v. Lovett, 1946 WL 50580, *50580+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Apr 22, 1946) Brief for Respondents (NO. 809, 810, 811)

773 Smith v. U.S., 1945 WL 48919, *48919+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Oct 26, 1945) Joint Brief for Petitioners (NO. 66, 292)

774 Nebraska v. Wyoming, 1945 WL 48351, *48351 (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jan 24, 1945) Brief for the United States of America, Intervenor (NO. 6)

775 Rodiek v. U.S., 1942 WL 53588, *53588+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Feb 12, 1942) Petitioner's Reply Brief. (NO. 325)

776 U.S. v. Santa Fe Pacific R. Co., 1941 WL 76696, *76696+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Oct 13, 1941) Respondent's Brief. (NO. 23)

777 U.S. v. Santa Fe Pacific R. Co., 1941 WL 76695, *76695+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Sep 22, 1941) Brief for the United States (NO. 23)

778 U.S. v. Northern Pacific Railway Co., 1940 WL 47066, *47066+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Feb 1940) Brief for the United States (NO. 3, 4)

779 Union Joint Stock Land Bank of Detroit v. Byerly, 1939 WL 48686, *48686+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S.Oct Term 1939) Brief of the Respondent Carl Byerly (NO. 579)

780 Woodring v. Wardell, 1939 WL 48507, *48507 (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Oct 05, 1939) Brief for The Respondent. (NO. 5)

781 Montana v. Bruce, 1938 WL 39057, *39057+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Nov 08, 1938) Brief for the Intervenors and Respondents (NO. 104)

782 Minnesota v. U.S., 1938 WL 63941, *63941+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Nov 1938) Brief for the United States (NO. 73)

783 Montana v. Bruce, 1938 WL 39055, *39055+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jul 23, 1938) Brief for the Intervenors and Respondents. (NO. 104)

784 Anniston Mfg. Co. v. Davis, 1937 WL 40706, *40706+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Mar 27, 1937) Brief Filed By Malcolm Donald As Amicus Curiae on Behalf of Pacific Mills (NO. 667)

785 Bourdieu v. Pacific Western Oil Co., 1936 WL 64957, *64957+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Oct 01, 1936) Brief for Respondents.%n*%n (NO. 2)

786 Borax Consol. Ltd. v. City of Los Angeles, 1935 WL 32997, *32997 (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Oct 10, 1935) Brief on Behalf of Respondent. (NO. 34)

787 California Oregon Power Co. v. Beaver Portland Cement Co., 1935 WL 32824, *32824 (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Apr 04, 1935) Petitioner's Reply Brief. (NO. 612)

788 California Oregon Power Co. v. Beaver Portland Cement Co., 1934 WL 32088, *32088 (Appellate

























Brief) (U.S. Oct Term 1934) Petitioner's Brief (NO. 612)

789 Miguel v. McCarl, 1933 WL 32134, *32134+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Dec 30, 1933) Brief on Behalfof Petitioner. (NO. 435)

790 U.S. v. Wilbur, 1931 WL 32922, *32922+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Apr 11, 1931) Brief for the Respondents (NO. 618, 676, 704, 743)

791 Group No. 1 Oil Corp. v. Bass, 1931 WL 32223, *32223+ (Appellate Brief) (U.S. Jan 26, 1931) Brief for Petitioner (NO. 425)

792 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramiro L. COLON-MUNOZ, Defendant-Appellant., 1999 WL 33910679, *33910679+ (Appellate Brief) (1st Cir. Jul 02, 1999) Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (""NACDL'') as Amicus Curiae Supportingthe Reversal of Appellant Col%21on-Munoz' Conviction (NO. 98-1684)

793 UNITED STATES, Appellee, v. Robert G. BEVERLY, Defendant, Appellant., 1993 WL 13625128, *13625128+ (Appellate Brief) (1st Cir. Jan 27, 1993) Brief for Appellant (NO. 92-2478)

794 Ashok KASHELKAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Andrew Lavoott BLUESTONE, Esq. Warren S. Hecht,Esq. Sandback, Birnbaum & Michelen, Defendants-Appelles., 2008 WL 5971974, *5971974 (Appellate Brief) (2nd Cir. Apr 22, 2008) Plaintiff Appellant's Brief (NO. 07-4805CV)

795 Ashok KASHELKAR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COUNTY OF ROCKLAND; Hon. Michael E. Bongiorno - District Attorney, County of Rockland, Defendants - Appellees Village of Spring Valley,Spring Valley Police Department; Police Officer J. Beltempo - Shield No 592, Defendants., 2007 WL6923729, *6923729 (Appellate Brief) (2nd Cir. Nov 27, 2007) Appellant's Brief-in Support of his Appeals (NO. 072500CV)

796 Edward Morris HARRIS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. K. J. WENDT, Warden, Seagoville Federal Detention Center, City of Seagoville, Texas, Respondent., 2004 WL 3167392, *3167392+ (AppellateBrief) (5th Cir. Jun 23, 2004) Appellant's Opening Brief%n1%n (NO. 04-10503)

797 Abraham Neiman CEMAJ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent-Counterclaimant-Appellee, v. International Bank of Commerce, Respondent on Counterclaim-Appellant., 1995 WL 17117207, *17117207+ (Appellate Brief) (5th Cir. Feb 1995) Brief for the Appellee (NO. 94-60623)

798 Julio Roberto Zarate BARQUERO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent-Counterclaimant-Appellee, v. International Bank of Commerce, Respondent on Counterclaim-Appellant., 1993 WL 13099918, *13099918+ (Appellate Brief) (5th Cir. Nov 23, 1993) Brief for the Appellee (NO. 93-7447)

799 KEWEENAW BAY INDIAN COMMUNITY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert NAFTALY, chairperson of the Michigan State Tax Commission Robert R. Lupi, member of the Michigan State Tax Commission Douglas B. Roberts, member of the Michigan State Tax Commission, Defendant-Appellant., 2005 WL 4717274, *4717274+ (Appellate Brief) (6th Cir. Dec 14, 2005) Final Brief of Appellee Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (NO. 05-1952) "

800 KEWEENAW BAY INDIAN COMMUNITY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert NAFTALY, chairperson of the Michigan State Tax Commission; Robert R. Lupi, member of the Michigan State Tax Commission; Douglas B. Roberts, member of the Michigan State Tax Commission, Defendant-Appellant., 2005 WL 4132163, *4132163+ (Appellate Brief) (6th Cir. Dec 06, 2005) Final Brief of Appellee Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (NO. 05-1952) "

801 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Donald MINNIECHESKE, et al., Defendants., 1995 WL 17198884, *17198884+ (Appellate Brief) (7th Cir. Mar 21, 1995) Brief-in-Chief and Appendixof Defendant-Appellant (NO. 95-1324)

802 AVISTA CORPORATION, INC., Plaintiff/Appellant, v. SANDERS COUNTY, Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company, Dorrien H. Wolfe, Diane Larson, Leslie Rickey, Sean M. Stephens,
















James R. Doyle, Bonnie M. Sharp, Ronald Gene Sharp, Ronald Scott Sharp, and Gregory Stewart Sharp, Defendants/Appellees., 2007 WL 2414599, *2414599+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Jul 27, 2007) Appellant's Brief (NO. 07-35321)

803 George L. MOTHERSHED, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. David A. THOMSON; Replying Brief The Honorable Margaret H. Downie, Superior Court Judge for the State of Arizona in and for Maricopa County; The Honorable Peter C. Reinstein, Superior Court Judge for the State of Arizona in and for Maricopa County; Defendants/Appellees., 2006 WL 3245278, *3245278+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir.2006) Plaintiff/Appellant's Replying Brief (NO. 06-15473)

804 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FRAZER CHARLES MacINNES, et al., Defendants, U.S. FINANCIAL, L.P., Respondent-Appellant., 2005 WL 627503, *627503+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Feb 10, 2005) Brief for Appellee United States (NO. 04-50494) "

805 Gene K. SMITH, Appellant/Petitioner, v. James HUNTSMAN, et. al., Appellee/Respondent., 2004 WL 1810160, *1810160 (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Jul 06, 2004) Appellant's or Petitioner's Informal Brief (NO. 04-35256)

806 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Bailey D. PETERSON, Defendant/Appellant., 2001 WL 34354704, *34354704+ (Appellate Brief) (9th Cir. Aug 06, 2001) Brief of Appellee (NO. 01-30073) "

807 Brenda M. WINOGROND, a natural person, Appellant/Plaintiff, v. SHERIFF OF BROWARD COUNTY, individually and as Sheriff of Broward County, Florida, Appellee/Defendant., 1999 WL 33644991, *33644991+ (Appellate Brief) (11th Cir. Aug 16, 1999) Appellant's Initial Brief on the Merits (NO. 99-11223-E)

808 Salim Ahmed HAMDAN, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Donald H. RUMSFELD, U.S. Secretary of Defense, et al,, Respondents-Appellants., 2004 WL 3080434, *3080434+ (Appellate Brief) (D.C.Cir.Dec 20, 2004) Brief for Appellee (NO. 04-5393)

809 Abdul M. TAALIB-DIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF DETROIT; P & D D ASSESSOR'S OFFICE, a state of Michigan Municipal Corporation; Walter C. Watkins; Margo C. Balkwill; Kwamie Kilpatrick; Department of Natural Resources; James E. Hurst; State of Michigan; Governor for the State of Michigan, Jennifer M. Granholm; Michigan Attorney General, Michael A. Cox; United States of America; United States Department of the Interior; Nina Rose Hatfield; John D. Ashcroft,, 2003 WL 23119365, *23119365 (Appellate Brief) (D.C.Cir. Dec 29, 2003) Brief for StateDefendants-Appellees Case Being Considered for Treatment Pursuant to Rule 34(j) of the General Rules (NO. 03-5130) "

810 Abdul M. TAALIB-DIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF DETROIT; P & D D Assessor's Office, a state of Michigan Municipal Corporation; Walter C. Watkins; Margo C. Balkwill; Kwamie Kilpatrick; Department of Natural Resources; James E. Hurst; State of Michigan; Governor for the State of Michigan, Jennifer M. Granholm; Michigan Attorney General, Michael A. Cox; United States of America; United States Department of the Interior; Nina Rose Hatfield; John D. Ashcroft,, 2003 WL 25585539, *25585539+ (Appellate Brief) (D.C.Cir. Dec 29, 2003) Brief for State Defendants-Appellees (NO. 03-5130)

811 In rem Land Patent No. 1822 Abdul M. TAALIB-DIN in proper personam, Appellant, v. City of Detroit, P. & D.d. and Assessor's Office, a State of Michigan Municipal Corporation, Margo C. BALKWILL, Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, Department of Natural Resources, Rodney A. Stokes, Michigan, Governor of Michigan, United States of America; Department of Interior, Nina Rose Hatfield A.k.a. Nina Rose Hatfield, John D. Ashcroft Attorney General; James E. Hurst, as Successorto Rodney A., 2003 WL 23119364, *23119364+ (Appellate Brief) (D.C.Cir. Dec 23, 2003) City Defendants'/Appellees' Brief on Appeal (NO. 03-5130) "

812 In rem Land Patent No. 1822 Abdul M. TAALIB-DIN in proper personam, Appellant, v. CITY OF DETROIT, P. & D.d. and Assessor's Office, a State of Michigan Municipal Corporation, Margo C.












Balkwill, Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, Department of Natural Resources, Rodney A. Stokes, Michigan,Governor of Michigan, United States of America; Department of Interior, Nina Rose Hatfield A.k.a. Nina Rose Hatfield, John D. Ashcroft Attorney General; James E. Hurst, as Successor to Rodney A., 2003 WL 25599410, *25599410+ (Appellate Brief) (D.C.Cir. Dec 23, 2003) City Defendants'/Appellees' Brief on Appeal (NO. 03-5130) "

813 Steve KOSANKE, et al., Appellants, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, et al., Appellees., 1998 WL 35241278, *35241278+ (Appellate Brief) (D.C.Cir. Jan 26, 1998) Appellants' Final Principal Brief (NO. 97-5145)

814 STATE OF ARIZONA, ex rel. Victor M. Mendez, Director, Department of Transportation, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Joy H. OWENS, Defendant/Appellant., 2008 WL 609784, *609784+ (Appellate Brief) (Ariz.App. Div. 1 Jan 17, 2008) Appellant's Opening Brief (NO. 1CA-CV07-0868)

815 Timothy W. YEUNG and Chuanpit C. Yeung, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Emery SOOS, Defendant and Appellant., 2004 WL 1284451, *1284451+ (Appellate Brief) (Cal.App. 2 Dist. Apr 12, 2004) Appellant's Reply Brief [Motion for Leave to Produce Additional Evidence and Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Brief Filed Concurrently Herewith] (NO. B165939)

816 Rex Francis WALTER: Startup, et Ux Linda: Startup, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. HOME SAVINGS OF AMERICA and Citizen's Thrift & Loan,their attorney's and related co.'s, Defendants and Respondents., 1998 WL 34353772, *34353772 (Appellate Brief) (Cal.App. 2 Dist. Jan 20, 1998) Opening Brief on Appeal from an Order (in Error) by Haley J. Fromholz, De Facto Judge, Sustaining ''""Demurrers"' of Defendants (NO. B104689)

817 Calvin Belnap ROSS(R), Respondent and Appellant, v. Gail B. ROSS, Petitioner and Respondent., 2007 WL 684416, *684416+ (Appellate Brief) (Cal.App. 4 Dist. Jan 10, 2007) Appellants Reply Brief (ARB) (NO. D048515)

818 Dorothy L. BIERY, et al., and Jerramy and Erin Pankratz, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATESOF AMERICA, Defendant., 2009 WL 1347147, *1347147 (Appellate Brief) (Kan. Apr 15, 2009) Brief of Plaintiffs (NO. 09-102006-5)

819 Ricky SMITH, Appellant, v. JACKSON STATE UNIVERSITY, Secretary of State of the State of Mississippi, Department of Finance and AdinistArtion, Appellees., 2008 WL 4651500, *4651500 (Appellate Brief) (Miss. Jan 14, 2008) Appellant's Opening Brief (NO. 2007-TS-01552)

820 MINERAL COUNTY, A Political Subdivision of the State of Nevada; and the Walker Lake Working Group, Petitioners, v. State of Nevada, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, an Agency of the State of Nevada, Peter Morros, Director of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources; and R. Michael Turnipseed, State Engineer, Respondents., 2000 WL 35587072, *35587072+ (Appellate Brief) (Nev. Oct 02, 2000) Answer to Petition for Writ of Mandamus andWrit of Prohibition (NO. 36352)

821 Terry WOLF and Florence Wolf, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CENTRAL OREGON & PACIFIC RAILROAD, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant-Respondent., 2008 WL 7573178, *7573178+ (Appellate Brief) (Or.App. Aug 2008) Respondent's Brief and Supplemental Excerpt of Record (NO. A136347)

822 In re the Personal Restraint of John TORTORELLI, Petitioner, v. State of Washington, Respondent., 2002 WL 32863012, *32863012+ (Appellate Brief) (Wash. Apr 09, 2002) Brief of Amicus Curiae State of Washington Department of Natural Resources (NO. 71251-4)

Trial Court Documents (U.S.A.)












Trial Pleadings

823 Charles Victor HOOPER; Plaintiff; v. Herbert SANDLER; Merion O. Sandler; World Savings and Loan, an entity; Golden West Savings Assoc., Service Co. Inc., an entity, Defendants., 2005 WL 2657192, *2657192+ (Trial Pleading) (E.D.Cal. Aug 26, 2005) Lodgment of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint for Quiet-Title Action, Breach of Contract and Fraud (NO. 205-CV-00244MCE-PAN)

824 Charles Victor HOOPER, a married man; Plaintiff, v. Herbert SANDLER, a U.S. Vessel; Merion O. Sandler, a U.S. Vessel; World Savings and Loan, an entity; Golden West Savings Asso., Service Co. Inc., an entity; Defendants., 2005 WL 1025502, *1025502+ (Trial Pleading) (E.D.Cal. Feb 07, 2005)Lodgment of Plaintiff's Complaint for Quiet-Title Action, Breach of Contract and Fraud (NO. 205CV-00244MCQPANPS)

825 James Mark TAIT, Petitioner, v. CLARKSTON STATE BANK Dawn Horner Shaheen, Jacobs & Ross, P.C. William Huffman (P51651) Nick O. Holowka, Judge Kevin B. Lasser the Findling Law Firm, PLC Erica Ehrlichman Richard A. Sabo, PLC, Respondent., 2008 WL 7095650, *7095650 (Trial Pleading) (E.D.Mich. Oct 17, 2008) Petition for Declaratory Judgment, to Quiet Title in the Federal Court for the State Zone (NO. 08-14411)

826 Jerry James STANTON, Plaintiff, v. Nancy HUTCHINS, Branch County Register of Deeds, Bambi Somerlott, Hillsdale County Register of Deeds, Laurie Adams, Coldwater Township Assessor, Jeffrey Budd, Coldwater Township Treasurer, Sandra S. Thatcher, Branch County Treasurer, Robert J. Kleine, State of Michigan Treasurer, Mike Cox, State of Michigan Attorney General, Kevin T. Smith, State of Michigan Assistant Attorney General, Michael A. Stimpson, State of, 2010 WL 1807521, *1807521 (Trial Pleading) (W.D.Mich. Jan 26, 2010) Suit for Permanent Injunction andOther Relief Against Violation of Federally Guaranteed Fundamental Rights (NO. 110-CV-74)

827 In pro Persona Stephen and Linda LYKENS, plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF MUSKEGON, Treasurers Office, defendant., 2003 WL 24277762, *24277762 (Trial Pleading) (W.D.Mich. Oct 12, 2003) CivilAction to ""Quiet Title'' on property under Original Federal Land Patent issued and brought current in plaintiffs names with a ""Declaration of Land Patent'' on file at Muskegon County Register ... (NO. 103CV0818)

828 Tod Maurice TODD; Plaintiff; v. James W. GAUTIER; Central Pacific Railroad Company; Defendants., 2005 WL 3767433, *3767433+ (Trial Pleading) (D.Nev. Sep 06, 2005) Lodgment of Complaint for Quieting Title (NO. CV-N-05-0495-ECR-VPC)

829 Richard Leland NEAL; Plaintiff, v. George G. SARGENT; Axel Ericson; Raymond S. Adams; William H. Grisselle; Defendants., 2005 WL 3767358, *3767358+ (Trial Pleading) (D.Nev. 2005) Lodgment of Complaint for Quieting Title (NO. CV-S-05-0954-KJD-RJJ)

830 Jerry P McNEIL, Patent Holder,ouster le mer Unrepresented Demandant and Claimant/Petitioner v. MELISSA ANDERSON ROGERS COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR P. O. Box 5 Claremore, Oklahoma 74017., 2006 WL 824466, *824466 (Trial Pleading) (N.D.Okla. Feb 06, 2006) Within the Admiralty Jurisdiction and Out of the Jurisdiction of any State an Action For Slander of Title an Action For Damages Caused By Cloud on Title I Allegation of Jurisdiction (NO. 06CV073TCK-PJC)

831 John RICCIO, Plaintiff, v. Judge ERNEST C. Torres Robert Clark Corrente, U.S. Atty. Zechariah Chafee, Assist. U.S. Atty., Defendants., 2007 WL 4767859, *4767859 (Trial Pleading) (D.R.I. May 21, 2007) Plaintiff's Complaint Against Defendant for Violating 18 U.S.C. Sec. 241, 242 Violating Individual Conspiracy to Violate 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 ""Under the Color of Law'' (NO. CA07184T)











832 Richard Leland NEAL, Plaintiff, v. SANTA FE PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, and any unknown heir and assignees, Defendants., 2008 WL 7088995, *7088995 (Trial Pleading) (N.D.Tex. Oct 14, 2008) Complaint Quieting Title (NO. 4-08CV-615-Y)

833 Mark Taylor MILLER, Plaintiff, v. CHASE MANHATTAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Defendant., 2002 WL 33769945, *33769945+ (Trial Pleading) (D.Utah Jan 07, 2002) Verified Complaint (NO. 202CV-0013J)

Trial Motions, Memoranda and Affidavits

834 WESTERN WATERSHEDS PROJECT, Plaintiff, v. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, Defendant., 2009 WL 1469588, *1469588 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Ariz. Mar 13, 2009) Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (NO. 208CV01472) "

835 TWO MINERS & 8000 ACRES OF LAND (T.W. Arman and John F. Hutchens, Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. et al) and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated Under God, Defendants, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al, Plaintiffs. TWO MINERS & 8000 ACRES OF LAND (T.W.Arman and John F. Hutchens, Iron Mountain Mines, Inc. et al) and On Behalf of All Others SimilarlySituated Under God, Defendants, v. ( STATE OF CALIFORNIA, on behalf of the California Department of Toxic, 2008 WL 5484498, *5484498 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (E.D.Cal. Nov 21, 2008) Objections to Request for Delay Agreement to Request for Status Conference On Joinder and Filing of Interpleador & Counterclaim with Constitutional Questions; Title By Patent (NO. 291CV00768)

836 Orin LOOS, Plaintiffs, v. LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, et al., Defendants., 2006 WL 433970, *433970+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Colo. Jan 03, 2006) Opening Brief in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 01-S-0075, PAC)

837 ORIN LOOS et al., Plaintiffs, v. LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Williams Communications, Inc. Sprint Corporation, and Union Pacific Railroad Company, Defendants., 2005 WL 3739085, *3739085+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Colo. Nov 01, 2005) Memorandum of Defendants Sprint Corporation, Level 3 LLC, and Wiltel Communications, LLC in Oppositionto Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification (NO. 01-CV-0075-DBS-PAC) "

838 Robert Todd HUNTER In-Care-Of, Plaintiff, v. US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION As Trustee for the Structured Asset Investment Loan Trust 2005-8 the Structured Asset Investment Loan Trust 2005-8, Defendants., 2009 WL 4921089, *4921089 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.D.C. Aug 27, 2009) Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint (NO. 09-1205, CKK) "

839 Lawrence S. MAXWELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Tommy G. THOMPSON, Defendant., 2003 WL 24252766, *24252766 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.D.C. Apr 22, 2003) Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit (NO. 02CV1732)

840 Lawrence S. MAXWELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Tommy G. THOMPSON, Defendant., 2003 WL 24252765, *24252765 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.D.C. Apr 18, 2003) Plaintiffs'Reply to Defendants' Reply to Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint Or, in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 02CV1732)

841 In re: William David MILLSAPS 6:06-Bk-3372. William David MILLSAPS, Appellant, v. Marija ARNJAS, Appellee., 2007 WL 5125502, *5125502+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (M.D.Fla. Oct 24, 2007) Initial Brief of Appellant (NO. 607CV01354)

842 Howard I. BASS, d/b/a Hibco Investments, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants., 2004 WL 3721552, *3721552+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (N.D.Ill.













Sep 16, 2004) Memorandum of Law in Support of United States of America's Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 04C1971)

843 In re: AT&T FIBER OPTIC CABLE INSTALLATION LITIGATION; This Document Relates to: 1:98-cv-1300-DFH-TAB (Hinshaw) 1:99-cv-1890-DFH-TAB (Thomson) 1:02-cv-7000-DFH-TAB (Peterson)., 2005 WL 3708125, *3708125+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Ind. May 27, 2005) AT&T's Reply Memorandum in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment on Federal Land Grant Right of Way (NO. 199-ML-9313-DFH-TAB)

844 In re: AT&T FIBER OPTIC CABLE INSTALLATION LITIGATION., 2005 WL 3742090, *3742090+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Ind. May 27, 2005) At&t's Reply Memorandum in Support of Its Motion For Summary Judgment on Federal Land Grant Rightof Way (NO. IP99-C-9313-DFH-TAB1)

845 In re: AT&T FIBER OPTIC CABLE INSTALLATION LITIGATION. This Document Relates to:., 2005 WL 5519605, *5519605+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Ind. May 27, 2005)AT&T's Reply Memorandum in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment on Federal Land Grant Right of Way (NO. 199-ML-9313-DFH-TAB1)

846 In re: AT&T FIBER OPTIC CABLE INSTALLATION LITIGATION; This Document Relates to: 1:98-cv-1300-DFH-TAB (Hinshaw) 1:99-cv-1890-DFH-TAB (Thomson) 1:02-cv-7000-DFH-TAB (Peterson)., 2005 WL 3708124, *3708124 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Ind. Apr 29, 2005) Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to AT&T's Motion for Summary Judgment on Federal Land-Grant Right of Way (NO. 199-ML-9313-DFH-TAB)

847 In re: AT&T FIBER OPTIC CABLE INSTALLATION LITIGATION; This Document Relates to: 1:98-cv-1300-DFH-TAB (Hinshaw) 1:99-cv-1890-DFH-TAB (Thomson) 1:02-cv-7000-DFH-TAB (Peterson)., 2005 WL 3708123, *3708123 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Ind. Mar24, 2005) Defendants' Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment on Federal Land Grant Right of Way (NO. 199-ML-9313-DFH-TAB)

848 In re: AT&T FIBER OPTIC CABLE INSTALLATION LITIGATION., 2005 WL 3742083, *3742083 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Ind. Mar 24, 2005) Defendants' Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment on Federal Land Grant Right of Way (NO. 199-ML-9313-DFH-TAB1)

849 In re: AT&T FIBER OPTIC CABLE INSTALLATION LITIGATION., 2005 WL 5519595, *5519595 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Ind. Mar 24, 2005) Defendants' Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment on Federal Land Grant Right of Way (NO. 199-ML-9313-DFH-TAB1)

850 In re: AT&T FIBER OPTIC CABLE INSTALLATION LITIGATION., 1999 WL 33988996, *33988996 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Ind. 1999) Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to AT&T's Motion for Summary Judgment on Federal Land-Grant Right of Way (NO. 199-ML-9313-DFH-TAB1)

851 In re: AT&T FIBER OPTIC CABLE INSTALLATION LITIGATION. This Document Relates to., 1999 WL 34813978, *34813978 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (S.D.Ind. 1999) Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to AT&T's Motion for Summary Judgment on Federal Land-Grant Right of Way (NO. 199-ML-9313-DFH-TAB1)

852 NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. COLONIAL PIPELINE COMPANY, Defendant., 2005 WL 3082058, *3082058 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Md. Oct 21, 2005) Plaintiff National Railroad Passenger Corporation's Motion to Dismiss Defendant Colonial Pipeline Company's Counterclaims for Condemnation (NO. JFM-05-CV-2267)

853 DETROIT LEASING COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Louis YEPEZ, et al., Defendants., 2005 WL 3710490, *3710490 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (E.D.Mich. Jul 12, 2005) United













States' Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 04-74189, PJD)

854 Michael John MODENA, Petitioner, v. Kimberly Kay MODENA a.k.a. Kimberly Kay Leer, Respondent., 2008 WL 2614210, *2614210 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (W.D.Mich. Apr 21, 2008) Objection to Report AMD Recommendation U.S. Court for the State Zone (NO. 108CV00107)

855 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Charles CONCES, Individually, D/b/a Chairman of the Lawmen, Public Interest Groups, an unincorporated organization Defendant., 2007 WL 4610766,*4610766 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (W.D.Mich. Jan 17, 2007) ""Motion in Opposition to Any Orders for Hearings Without Jurisdiction'', Brief, and Exhibit One (NO. 105CV0739)

856 KEWEENAW BAY INDIAN COMMUNITY, on its own behalf and as parens patriae for its members, Plaintiff, v. Robert NAFTALY, chairperson of the Michigan State Tax Commission; RobertR. Lupi, member of the Michigan State Tax Commission; Doug Roberts, member of the Michigan State Tax Commission; Dennis W. Platte, Executive Secretary of the Michigan State Tax Commission; L'anse Township in the State of Michigan; Baraga Township in the State of Michigan; Matthew J., 2004 WL 3715510, *3715510 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (W.D.Mich. Dec 17, 2004) Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to State Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment (NO. 203-CV0170)

857 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEWARK, et al., Defendants., 2008 WL 7190322, *7190322+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.N.J. Oct 24, 2008) Memorandum of Law in Support of United States of America's Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 207-CV-05961)

858 State of Washington, by and through the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Plaintiff, v. BARNACLE POINT L.L.C., a Washington limited liability company, Defendant., 2004 WL 4008422, *4008422 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (W.D.Wash. Jan 20, 2004) State of Washington's Motion to Remand (NO. C03-3945P)

859 MORGAN, v. USA et al., 2007 WL 6966542, *6966542+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Wyo. Dec 04, 2007) Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (NO. 06CV00171) "

860 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. WYOMING AND COLORADO RAILROAD COMPANY, INC., et al. Defendants., 2007 WL 6966540, *6966540+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Wyo. Nov 13, 2007) United States' Response to Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendants Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust and Marvin M. Brandt, Trustee (NO. 06-CV-0184J, 06-CV-171J)

861 Stephen GOLDBERG, Plaintiff, v. Susan WATTS, Defendant., 2002 WL 34486893, *34486893 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Fla.Cir.Ct. Aug 06, 2002) Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's State Complaint; and Memorandum of Law (NO. 02-2142-CA)

862 State of Ohio ex rel., Robert Merrill, Trustee, et al., Plaintiffs-Relators and Named Class Representatives, Homer S. Taft, et al., Intervening Plaintiffs-Relators, Pro Se, v. State of Ohio, Department of Natural Resources, et al., Defendants-Respondents and Counterclaimants, National Wildlife Federation, et al., Intervening Defendants and Counterclaimants., 2004 WL 5530825, *5530825+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (Ohio Com.Pl. 2004) Motion of Defendants-Respondents for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support (NO. 04-CV-001080)











Trial Filings

863 CHRISTOFFERSON, v. NORTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH., 2006 WL 5738747, *5738747 (Trial Filing) (N.D.Dist. Jun 15, 2006) Constructive and Actual Notice of Rescission of Signature (NO. 08-06-C-0007)

