US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ |™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for

TELFENER V. RUSS, 163 U. S. 100 (1896)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 163 U. S. 100 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

Telfener v. Russ, 163 U.S. 100 (1896)

Telfener v. Russ

No. 462

Presented May 7, 1896

Denied May 18, 1896

163 U.S. 100



Petitions for rehearing of a case decided March 30, 1896, 162 U. S. 162 U.S. 170, are denied.

Two petitions for rehearing were received.

MR. JUSTICE FIELD delivered the opinion of the Court.

It is firmly established that the State of Texas cannot, in opposition to its wishes, be compelled to accept an office survey constructed by merely copying and adopting the field notes of a previous survey made on the ground, for other parties, by other surveyors, and that such office surveys are not sufficient to enable a purchaser to enforce an executory contract for the sale of public lands under the Act of July 14, 1879, as amended March 11, 1881. Bacon v. State, 2 Tex.Civ.App. 692, and cases cited.

We adhere to the ruling that error was committed by the circuit court in the manner in which this matter of the necessity of surveys on the ground was left to the jury. We also intimated that it seemed, from the evidence, so far as before us, that the surveys in this instance were not in fact made on the ground, but that was not essential to the decision.

Some expressions in our former opinion implying that payment was a prerequisite to recovery are complained of. What we intended to say was that, under the pleadings and on plaintiff's contention as it seemed to be pressed, it was necessary that he should show that he had so far complied with the law as to have obtained a vested right to patents as against the state on making the required payments in the required time, and this we thought he had failed to do as to all the tracts, it being borne in mind that each tract must be treated chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 163 U. S. 101

as a separate purchase under the statute, as held in Bacon v. State, supra, though this contract, as between the parties, was an entire contract for the transfer of rights in the many tracts necessary to make up the agreed number of acres.

Petition denied.

ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for Search for

Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



Browse By ->> Volume


Browse By ->> Year


  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library |™