Summary

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Richardson v. Ainsa — Opinion of the Court

He says that the words 'if in any case' it shall appear that lands have been sold by the United States apply as well to a proceeding by the United States as to one where the claimant goes forward. He argues that so to apply them is just, in view of the supposedly unknown boundaries of the old Mexican grants and the policy of the United States in offering its public lands to settlers,-that otherwise there is a suspended threat, and possibility of a claimant turning up after many years, and dispossessing those who had been encouraged by the United States to go upon the land.
Source: Wikisource

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Richardson v. Ainsa — Opinion of the Court

But is § 8 there is a further provision by which the United States may proceed against the claimant, as it did against the appellee, on the ground that the title or boundaries are open to question, and therefore the court is to determine the matter, 'but subject to all lawful rights adverse to such claimant or possessor, as between such claimant and possessor and any other claimant or possessor, and subject in this respect to all the provisions of this section applicable thereto.' The appellant argues that this provision gives a wider meaning to § 14.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature