Skip to content


PerrIn Vs. United States - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number171 U.S. 292
AppellantPerrin
RespondentUnited States
Excerpt:
.....1898 decided may 81, 1898 171 u.s. 292 appeal from the court of private land claims syllabus camou v. united states, ante, 171 u. s. 277 , followed. the case is stated in the opinion. mr. justice brewer delivered the opinion of the court. so far as the question of title is concerned, this case is similar to the one immediately preceding. camou v. united states, ante, 171 u. s. 277 . for reasons therein stated, the decree of the court of private land claims will be reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings. it is true, as suggested in its opinion, the court of private land claims thought that there was no sufficient location of the tract in controversy, and that probably the grant was void for.....
Judgment:
Perrin v. United States - 171 U.S. 292 (1969)
U.S. Supreme Court Perrin v. United States, 171 U.S. 292 (1898)

Perrin v. United States

No. 30

Argued March 16-17, 1898

Decided May 81, 1898

171 U.S. 292

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF PRIVATE LAND CLAIMS

Syllabus

Camou v. United States, ante, 171 U. S. 277 , followed.

The case is stated in the opinion.

MR. JUSTICE BREWER delivered the opinion of the Court.

So far as the question of title is concerned, this case is similar to the one immediately preceding. Camou v. United States, ante, 171 U. S. 277 . For reasons therein stated, the decree of the Court of Private Land Claims will be reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings. It is true, as suggested in its opinion, the Court of Private Land Claims thought that there was no sufficient location of the tract in controversy, and that probably the grant was void for uncertainty in the description of the property. It may be that this conclusion was right. At the same time, in view of what has been recently said by this Court in respect to boundaries, description, and area, we think that justice requires that we reverse the judgment, and remand the case for further proceedings. Perhaps the claimants may be able to satisfactorily identify a tract not larger than the area purchased and paid for which should equitably be recognized as the tract granted.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //