Summary

Portrait of Melville Fuller Melville Fuller Frellsen Company v. Crandell — Opinion of the Court

Counsel criticize the opinion of the supreme court of Louisiana, in that it speaks of all the lands as having gone to patent, while it is said in the petition that some of the assignees 'stood upon the certificates.' Whether the language of the petition technically justifies the construction placed upon it by the supreme court of the state is immaterial.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Melville Fuller Melville Fuller Frellsen Company v. Crandell — Opinion of the Court

Certainly, there is no naming of any single tract as covered by certificate alone, and not patented, and if any tract was held under a certificate of location, it was, within the scope of the ruling of the supreme court, not subject to other entry or purchase.
We see no error in the ruling of the Supreme Court, and its judgment is affirmed.
Notes
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105) .
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature