Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia (Volume 17); Sitting in General Term, from June 14, 1880, to [Ju
Paperback
Currently unavailable to order
ISBN10: 1154231860
ISBN13: 9781154231861
Publisher: General Books
Pages: 192
Weight: 0.78
Height: 0.41 Width: 7.44 Depth: 9.69
Language: English
ISBN13: 9781154231861
Publisher: General Books
Pages: 192
Weight: 0.78
Height: 0.41 Width: 7.44 Depth: 9.69
Language: English
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated.1888 Excerpt: ... UNITED STATES vs. MARTIN F. MORRIS Et Al. I In the proceedings under the Act of Congress of August 15, 1896, providing for the protection of the interests of the United States in the Potomac Flats, the burden is upon the defendants to maintain by evidence the title which they claim and set forth in their answers. In Equity. No. 10,063. Decided July 18,1887. The Chief Justice and Justices James and Mereick sitting Suit to determine the title to certain lands, commenced under the Act of Congress of August 15, 1886, providing for protecting the interests of the United States in the Potomac Flats. Motion by defendant Harvey for a decree, certified to the General Term to be heard in the first instance. The Facts are stated in the opinion. Messrs. A. S. Wortiiington and H. T. Taggart, for complainant. To what purpose is the Government to be required to offer evidence as to its title? Suppose it fails to prove that it owns a foot of the area in question, what then? Why, clearly, the Court must still go on and ascertain what is the interest of each of the claimants, and what that interest is worth. It may be that the Government had no title, and that the defendants have none. In that case the real owners are barred by the express provision of section 3 of the act. This is in no sense an action of ejectment. The United States cannot be disseised and cannot bring ejectment. Tyler Eject., 944; 3 Washb. Real Estate, 525; State vs. Arledge, 1 Bailey (S. C), 551. At common law the title is presumed to be in the State, and that presumption of itself is prima facie enough; and where the State under a statute may be barred by adverse possession, and it brings ejectment against one in adverse possession, upon its showing that that possession has not been continuous during th...
