Summary

Portrait of David Josiah Brewer David Josiah Brewer Hyde v. Bishop Iron Company — Opinion of the Court

We do not stop to inquire whether an agreement to give a mortgage for money advanced comes within the letter or spirit of the statute, for there was enough in the testimony to justify the conclusion of the department that it was a contract to divide the land when obtained, and it is not the province of the courts to review such finding of fact.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of David Josiah Brewer David Josiah Brewer Hyde v. Bishop Iron Company — Opinion of the Court

The testimony is not preserved in the record, and no question can arise upon the findings of fact, for they are simply to the effect that the plaintiff had the legal title to an undivided 1/2 3/5 and the leasehold right from the legal holders of the remaining 1/2 2/5, and that the defendant was in possession without any color of title or right to the lands, so that the only questions which can be considered are those which arise upon the demurrers to the amended cross petition.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of David Josiah Brewer David Josiah Brewer Hyde v. Bishop Iron Company — Opinion of the Court

Such a construction would enable an applicant without any risk to speculate on the chances of escaping detection in his effort to violate the statute and thwart the purposes of Congress in the disposal of public lands.
No one can read the testimony which was offered before the land officers without perceiving that there was sufficient in it to justify a finding that the applicant had made a contract in direct violation of the statutory provisions. It is true he himself testified that he was to secure Mr.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature