|
Chesapeake Beach Ry. Co. v. Washington, P. & C. R. Co., 199 U.S. 247 (1905)
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.
Chesapeake Beach Ry. Co. v. Washington, P. & C. R. Co., 199 U.S. 247 (1905)
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 199 U.S. 241, click here.
Chesapeake Beach Railway Company v. Washington, Potomac and Chesapeake Railroad Company No. 35 Argued October 31, November 1, 1905 Decided November 13, 1905 199 U.S. 247
ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Syllabus
In an action of ejectment in which the plaintiff relied upon a line of conveyances not going back to the original source of title coupled with possession on the part of a grantor, held, on a discussion of the evidence, that the deeds sufficiently identified the land and that the plaintiff was entitled to go to the jury on the question of possession.
A deed by the trustee of a mortgage reciting a foreclosure decree is not limited in its operation to the authority conferred by the decree, but passes the title of the trustee to the land which it purports to convey.
A reference in a declaration to tax sales of the land demanded will not be construed to import that there is a title outstanding in third persons, as against the allegation that the plaintiff was lawfully seized of the premises, no evidence having been taken on the subject at the trial. A conveyance of land in the District of Columbia made by a disseisee is valid.
The title of a railroad company, as against a disseisor, to land conveyed to the railroad by an earlier company authorized to extend into the District of Columbia is not affected by the question whether the grantee also had been authorized to go there.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Chesapeake Beach Ry. Co. v. Washington, P. & C. R. Co., 199 U.S. 247 (1905) in 199 U.S. 247 199 U.S. 248. Original Sources, accessed November 22, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=GBU2578RF3CTNN9.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Chesapeake Beach Ry. Co. v. Washington, P. & C. R. Co., 199 U.S. 247 (1905), in 199 U.S. 247, page 199 U.S. 248. Original Sources. 22 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=GBU2578RF3CTNN9.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Chesapeake Beach Ry. Co. v. Washington, P. & C. R. Co., 199 U.S. 247 (1905). cited in 1905, 199 U.S. 247, pp.199 U.S. 248. Original Sources, retrieved 22 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=GBU2578RF3CTNN9.
|