Summary

Joseph McKenna Greenameyer v. Coate — Opinion of the Court

And he finally alleges that on or about the 1st of March, 1901, which was after the proceedings in the Land Department had closed, he learned 'of the existence of proof sufficient to substantiate the allegations of fraud and imposition on the defendant's part.' From whom or how he learned it or what defendant did to keep it from him, is not alleged.
Source: Wikisource

Joseph McKenna Greenameyer v. Coate — Opinion of the Court

The decision of the proper officers of the Department is in the nature of a judicial determination of the matter in dispute.'
The cases adduced by plaintiff are consistent with that principle. They only declare the general doctrine that the holder of a patent may be declared to hold the same as trustee for another when he has procured it by an error of law committed by the Land Department, the facts being undisputed, or by fraud or imposition upon that Department.
Source: Wikisource

Joseph McKenna Greenameyer v. Coate — Opinion of the Court

The office recommended that the entry of the defendant 'be permitted to stand.' The finding and decision were successively affirmed by the Commissioner of the General Land Office and the Secretary of the Interior, in an elaborate opinion, in which the testimony was quoted and commented upon. And to these decisions we must look as the ultimate action of the Department. It is of no legal consequence that different views were expressed in other decisions. It is not contended that Secretary Hitchcock, when he rendered the last decision, did not have complete jurisdiction of the case.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature