TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Hasse

Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Hasse

Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Hasse, 197 U.S. 9 (1905)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
February 20, 1905
Docket
No. 118
Judges
Fuller, Harlan
Citations
197 U.S. 925 S. Ct. 30549 L. Ed. 6421905 U.S. LEXIS 1231
Syllabus
This'case is governed by the'decision in Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Townsend, 190 U. S. 267, and. Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Ely, ante, p. 1.
Summary
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON. The facts are stated in the opinion.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion — Fuller

Mr. Chief Justice Fuller delivered the opinion of the court.- This was an action of ejectment brought by the Norther; Pacific Railway. Company in the Superior Court of Kittjtai *10 County, Washington, to recover possession of part of its right of way, the land being partly within and partly without a right of way of two hundred feet in width. Defendants asserted title by virtue of a homestead application, filed May 24, 1883, final proof July 12,1888, and patent September 27,1889;- and adverse possession for the period named in the statute of limitations. Judgment was entered in favor of the. railway company, and 'defendants carried the case by appeal to the Supreme Court of Washington, which held the statute of limitations applicable, reversed the judgment below and remanded the case with directions to dismiss the action. 28 Washington, 353.

The grant of right of way, unlike the land grant, was effective from the date of the act, and the fact that the railroad was not built until after defendants’ entry does not affect the disposition of the case.

Railroad Company v. Baldwin, 103 U. S. 426 ;

Bybee v. Oregon & California Railroad Company, 139 U. S. 663, 679 . .

The judgment must be reversed‘on the authority of Northern Pacific Railway Company, v. Townsend, 190 U. S. 267 , and remanded for further proceedings hot inconsistent with the opinion of this court in Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Ely, ante, p. 1.

Judgment reversed.

Mr. Justice Harlan dissented.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1910: 21912: 11913: 11914: 11916: 11930: 11935: 11992: 119102026peak 1910 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Noble v. Oklahoma City1935 OK 162, 44 P.2d 135
  2. City of Maroa v. Illinois Central Railroad592 N.E.2d 660 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992)
  3. Curry v. Port Lavaca Channel & Dock Co.25 S.W.2d 987 (Tex. App. 1930)
  4. Stuart v. Union Pac. R.178 F. 753 (8th Cir. 1910)
  5. Union Pacific Railroad v. Harris215 U.S. 386 (1910)
  6. Stuart v. Union Pacific Railroad227 U.S. 342 (1913)

Most recent

  1. City of Maroa v. Illinois Central Railroad592 N.E.2d 660 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992)
  2. Noble v. Oklahoma City1935 OK 162, 44 P.2d 135
  3. Curry v. Port Lavaca Channel & Dock Co.25 S.W.2d 987 (Tex. App. 1930)
  4. Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. McDonald157 P. 222 (Wash. 1916)
  5. State ex rel. Hahler v. Grimes148 N.W. 942 (Neb. 1914)
  6. Stuart v. Union Pacific Railroad227 U.S. 342 (1913)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Townsend, 190 U.S. 267 (1903) 193
R.R. Co. v. Baldwin, 103 U.S. 426 (1881) 122
Bybee v. Or. & Cal. R.R., 139 U.S. 663 (1891) 64

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list