Skip to content


Smith Vs. Naphtaly - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number169 U.S. 365
AppellantSmith
RespondentNaphtaly
Excerpt:
smith v. naphtaly - 169 u.s. 365 (1898) u.s. supreme court smith v. naphtaly, 169 u.s. 365 (1898) 169 u.s. 365 smith vsrv. naphtaly. no. 181. february 28, 1898 henry f. crane, for appellant. a. t. britton and a. r. browne, for appellee. mr. justice peckham delivered the opinion of the court. in this case counsel for the appellant concedes that if the court should hold that the sale of the land mentioned in the patent involved in the foregoing case (18 sup. ct. 354) were a valid sale, then the judgment in this case should be affirmed. as we do so hold, the judgment herein is therefore affirmed.
Judgment:
SMITH v. NAPHTALY - 169 U.S. 365 (1898)
U.S. Supreme Court SMITH v. NAPHTALY, 169 U.S. 365 (1898)

169 U.S. 365

SMITH vsrv.

NAPHTALY.
No. 181.

February 28, 1898

Henry F. Crane, for appellant.

A. T. Britton and A. R. Browne, for appellee.

Mr. Justice PECKHAM delivered the opinion of the court.

In this case counsel for the appellant concedes that if the court should hold that the sale of the land mentioned in the patent involved in the foregoing case (18 Sup. Ct. 354) were a valid sale, then the judgment in this case should be affirmed. As we do so hold, the judgment herein is therefore affirmed.


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