Summary

Portrait of Morrison Waite Morrison Waite Warren v. Van Brunt — Opinion of the Court

It is first contended by Warren that the patent should have been issued to him, because his settlement upon the disputed premises was both in fact and by the declaratory statements of the respective parties anterior to that of Van Brunt, and because by the act of Congress the first settlement gives the better right. It is not important for us to know what the claims of the parties have been. We must look to the facts as they actually existed, and from these it appears that neither of the parties had an advantage over the other by reason of a prior settlement.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Morrison Waite Morrison Waite Warren v. Van Brunt — Opinion of the Court

On the 4th of August, A.D. 1854, the provisions of the Pre-emption Act were extended to unsurveyed lands in that Territory; but it was further provided that if, when the lands were surveyed, it should appear that two or more persons had settled upon the same quarter-section, each should be permitted to enter his improvements as near as might be by legal subdivisions. [2]
There is no legal subdivision of the public lands less than a quarter of a quarter-section, or forty acres, except in the case of fractional sections.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Morrison Waite Morrison Waite Warren v. Van Brunt — Opinion of the Court

The pre-emption laws provided, at the time of this entry and purchase, that before any person should be allowed to enter lands upon a claim for pre-emption he must make oath that he had not directly or indirectly made any agreement or contract in any way or manner with any person, by which the title he might acquire by his purchase should enure in whole or in part to the benefit of any person except himself.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature