|
|
Richardson v. Ainsa, 218 U.S. 289 (1910)
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.
Richardson v. Ainsa, 218 U.S. 289 (1910)
Richardson v. Ainsa No. 28 Argued November 2, 1910 Decided November 14, 1910 218 U.S. 289
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE TERRITORY OF ARIZONA
Syllabus
Notwithstanding the contention of appellant in this case, the decision of this Court in Ainsa v. New Mexico & Arizona R. Co., No. 2, 175 U.S. 91, that the District Court of Arizona had jurisdiction of an action to quiet title brought by a grantee of the Mexican government of land in the territory included in the Gadsden Purchase, did not proceed upon a mistake in fact and is not inconsistent with the reasoning of the decision of Ainsa v. New Mexico & Arizona R. Co., No. 1, 175 U.S. 76.
Under the Gadsden Purchase Treaty with Mexico of December 30, 1853, 10 Stat. 1031, the good faith of the United States was pledged to respect Mexican titles, and one whose title was absolutely perfected prior to the treaty was not bound to present his title for confirmation to the Court of Private Land Claims under the Act of March 3, 1891; nor did the fact that he prayed for confirmation, in a suit brought by the United States against him in that court to declare the patent void or to determine boundaries if valid, limit his claim to the recovery of the price specified in the act for land included within the grant but patented to others by the United States.
While, under § 14 of the Act of March 3, 1891, where the claimant of a Mexican land grant himself presented his claim to a Mexican grant in the Gadsden Purchase to the Court of Private Land Claims, he might be limited to recovery in the case of lands within his grant sold by the United States to the price specified in the act, where he is brought into the court by the United States in a suit attempting to set aside a grant title to which was perfected before the treaty, he is not so limited and patents issued by the United States to lands within the boundaries of his grant are mere usurpations and void.
95 P. 103 affirmed.
The fact, which involve the title to land in Arizona in the territory known as the Gadsden Purchase, are stated in the opinion.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Richardson v. Ainsa, 218 U.S. 289 (1910) in 218 U.S. 289 218 U.S. 290–218 U.S. 294. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=YNPCYYU8PCGWVFU.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Richardson v. Ainsa, 218 U.S. 289 (1910), in 218 U.S. 289, pp. 218 U.S. 290–218 U.S. 294. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=YNPCYYU8PCGWVFU.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Richardson v. Ainsa, 218 U.S. 289 (1910). cited in 1910, 218 U.S. 289, pp.218 U.S. 290–218 U.S. 294. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=YNPCYYU8PCGWVFU.
|