Skip to content


Campbell Vs. Weyerhaeuser - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number219 U.S. 424
AppellantCampbell
RespondentWeyerhaeuser
Excerpt:
.....by him claimed was rejected by the land department, and campbell was not permitted to enter the land. the land furnishing the selection basis also lay further west in minnesota than the lost tract in the hoyt case. the court of appeals held that campbell acquired no equitable interest in the land by his application and the denial thereof, and consequently he could not maintain a bill in equity to charge the title under the patent issued to the railroad company upon a selection of a tract as lieu land, and affirmed the decree of the circuit court, dismissing the bill. as, in any event, the decision rendered in the hoyt case is decisive of this, we hold that the bill was rightly dismissed, and the decree of the circuit court of appeals is therefore affirmed. mr......
Judgment:
Campbell v. Weyerhaeuser - 219 U.S. 424 (1911)
U.S. Supreme Court Campbell v. Weyerhaeuser, 219 U.S. 424 (1911)

Campbell v. Weyerhaeuser

No. 12

Argued April 27, 28, 1910

Restored to docket for reargument December 19, 1910

Reargued January 19, 20, 1911

Decided February 20, 1911

219 U.S. 424

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

Syllabus

Decided on authority of Weyerhaeuser v. Hoyt, ante, p. 219 U. S. 380 .

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Page 219 U. S. 425

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case and the Hoyt case, just decided, are of the same general character, and were consolidated and tried below as one case. In this case, however, the application of Campbell to purchase the tract by him claimed was rejected by the Land Department, and Campbell was not permitted to enter the land. The land furnishing the selection basis also lay further west in Minnesota than the lost tract in the Hoyt case. The court of appeals held that Campbell acquired no equitable interest in the land by his application and the denial thereof, and consequently he could not maintain a bill in equity to charge the title under the patent issued to the railroad company upon a selection of a tract as lieu land, and affirmed the decree of the circuit court, dismissing the bill. As, in any event, the decision rendered in the Hoyt case is decisive of this, we hold that the bill was rightly dismissed, and the decree of the circuit court of appeals is therefore

Affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN and MR. JUSTICE DAY dissent for the reasons set forth in the dissenting opinion in case of Weyerhaeuser v. Hoyt, ante, p. 219 U. S. 380 .


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