|
|
Adams v. Henderson, 168 U.S. 573 (1897)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Adams v. Henderson, 168 U.S. 573 (1897)
Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 168 U.S. 532, click here.
Adams v. Henderson No. 70 Argued and submitted November 1, 1897 Decided December 6, 1897 168 U.S. 573
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE TERRITORY OF UTAH
Syllabus
A. & S. owned a tract of land in a township numbered 5 which was within the limits of the Union Pacific Railroad grants and was acquired from that company after the execution of its mortgages, its deed reserving to the company the exclusive right to prospect for coal and other minerals on the lands. A. & S. contracted to sell this tract to R. & H., representing that they had a good and indefeasible estate in fee simple in it, and agreeing to furnish an abstract of title. R. & H. agreed to buy the tract for a sum named, to be paid partly in cash and partly by notes secured by mortgage on the property. The deed, mortgage, notes, and money payments were accordingly made and exchanged in supposed compliance with the agreement, but no abstract of title was furnished. In the deed and mortgage, the land was by mistake of the scrivener described as township No. 6 instead of township No. 5. A. & S. had no interest in or title to land in township No. 6. No patent was ever issued by the government for land in township No. 5. R. & H., on learning the facts, demanded the return of the money paid, and of the notes, claiming to rescind the contract of sale. A. & S. tendered a deed of the land in township No. 5. Subsequent to the tender, the Union Pacific Company released the land from claim under the coal reservation, but not as to other minerals. Held that R. & H. were not bound to accept the deed tendered, and were entitled to have the contract rescinded, and to receive back the money paid by them.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Adams v. Henderson, 168 U.S. 573 (1897) in 168 U.S. 573 168 U.S. 574. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=DSBLR7M3UMYMGIV.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Adams v. Henderson, 168 U.S. 573 (1897), in 168 U.S. 573, page 168 U.S. 574. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=DSBLR7M3UMYMGIV.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Adams v. Henderson, 168 U.S. 573 (1897). cited in 1897, 168 U.S. 573, pp.168 U.S. 574. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=DSBLR7M3UMYMGIV.
|