Burrell v. Haw

Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Report a problem

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

3,599

Attorney(S)

George Cadwalader, for the Appellant, argued that the fact that the defendant falsely swore that he was a citizen, in his declaratory statement, established fraudulent practices on his part to procure the patent, and showed that the Land Officers were deceived; and cited, Cunningham v. Ashley, 14 How. U.S. 377; Barnard v. Ashley, 18 Id. 43; Garland v. Winn, 20 Id. 6; Minnesota v. Bachelder, 1 Wallace 109, and Johnson v. Towsley, 13 Wallace 72. S. M. Buck and G. W. Spaulding, for Respondent, argued that the Court would not review the judgment of the Land Officers on question of fact, since the passage of the Act of 1841; and cited, Semple v. Hagar, 27 Cal. 170; Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. U.S. 506; Quinn v. Kenyon, 38 Cal. 504; Lindsey v. Hawes, 2 Black, 558, and Miles v. Caldwell, 2 Wallace, 39.

Are you a practicing lawyer?

Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.

Upload pleading to use the new AI search

Click here to upload

Cites

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

3,599

Attorney(S)

George Cadwalader, for the Appellant, argued that the fact that the defendant falsely swore that he was a citizen, in his declaratory statement, established fraudulent practices on his part to procure the patent, and showed that the Land Officers were deceived; and cited, Cunningham v. Ashley, 14 How. U.S. 377; Barnard v. Ashley, 18 Id. 43; Garland v. Winn, 20 Id. 6; Minnesota v. Bachelder, 1 Wallace 109, and Johnson v. Towsley, 13 Wallace 72. S. M. Buck and G. W. Spaulding, for Respondent, argued that the Court would not review the judgment of the Land Officers on question of fact, since the passage of the Act of 1841; and cited, Semple v. Hagar, 27 Cal. 170; Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. U.S. 506; Quinn v. Kenyon, 38 Cal. 504; Lindsey v. Hawes, 2 Black, 558, and Miles v. Caldwell, 2 Wallace, 39.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

SAMUEL BURRELL v. ROBERT A. HAW

They also argued that the declaratory statement was not evidence; and cited, Hemphill v. Davies, 38 Cal. 579.

JUDGES: McKinstry, J.

OPINION

McKINSTRY, Judge

For the reasons set forth in the opinion of the learned Judge of the District Court, the judgment and order denying new trial herein are affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.