Owen J. Roberts

Name: Noble v. Oklahoma City — Opinion of the Court
Author: Owen J. Roberts

Noble v. Oklahoma City — Opinion of the Court

Summary

“Noble v. Oklahoma City — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Owen J. Roberts. It explores elements such as the United States, railroad and Oklahoma City.

Quotes from Noble v. Oklahoma City — Opinion of the Court (Owen J. Roberts)

Owen J. Roberts, Noble v. Oklahoma City — Opinion of the Court

“ As no question is made but that the reverter clause in that deed became operative upon abandonment of the line, the Noble title is superior to that of the respondent. It is equally true that when Higgins made his deed to the railroad company in 1898 he had good title to the premises conveyed and by that conveyance the railroad obtained whatever estate it had. The petitioners insist that the habendum clause in the deed operated to clothe them with full title on abandonment of the right of way. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Owen J. Roberts, Noble v. Oklahoma City — Opinion of the Court

“ The act of 1888, considered in its entirety, evinces the intent that the company is to compensate for all lands taken for its use, whether those of individual allottees or of the tribe. No provision for compensation to white settlers was made because at the date of the passage of the statutes none were permitted within the area to be traversed by the railroad. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Owen J. Roberts, Noble v. Oklahoma City — Opinion of the Court

“ Petitioners further urged that, even if the acts of Congress operated as grants in praesenti, the estate of the company endured only so long as the land was devoted to railroad use, with a right of reverter, either vested in the Creek Tribe and conveyed to the United States by the cession effective March 1, 1889, or vested directly in the United States; and the right of reverter passed from the United States by patent to the petitioners' ancestors and from them, by deed and inheritance, to the respective petitioners. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Owen J. Roberts, Noble v. Oklahoma City — Opinion of the Court

“ March 23, 1889, the President issued a proclamation opening a portion of the lands to settlement at noon April 22, 1889. Before the latter date the railway company had surveyed the line of its proposed railroad through what is now Oklahoma City and market it by stakes along the center line of the right of way and by signs warning that the land was claimed for right of way and station purposes. It appears to have been then known that a townsite would be laid out on the quarter-section in which the Noble tract is located. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Owen J. Roberts, Noble v. Oklahoma City — Opinion of the Court

“ It is well settled that the title to right of way and station lands conferred by the general railroad act does not accrue to the company until a map of definite location is filed with the Secretary of the Interior for his approval, or the road is actually constructed, and the rights of one claiming by settlement or occupancy antedating such filing or construction, are superior to those of the railroad. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Owen J. Roberts, Noble v. Oklahoma City — Opinion of the Court

“ Section 3 requires that, before the road shall be constructed through land held by any individual occupant according to Indian usage, full compensation must be made to the occupant, prescribes the method of securing compensation, and creates a tribunal for ascertaining and awarding it, from whose decision a right of appeal to a federal court is given. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Owen J. Roberts, Noble v. Oklahoma City — Opinion of the Court

“ Section 5 lays on the company the obligation to pay to any tribe through whose unallotted lands the line may run a fixed compensation per mile. If the tribe be dissatisfied with the amount specified in the act, the just measure of compensation is to be ascertained by the same procedure as is directed in the case of an individual allottee. The company is permitted to survey and locate its railway immediately ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Owen J. Roberts, Noble v. Oklahoma City — Opinion of the Court

“ The release, conveyance, and extinguishment of the Indians' rights was not to inure 'to the benefit of or cause to vest in any railroad company any right, title, or interest whatever in or to any of said lands * * * and all grants or pretended grants of said lands or any interest or right therein now existing in or on behalf of any railroad company, except rights of way and depot grounds,' were declared forfeited for breach of condition. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Owen J. Roberts, Noble v. Oklahoma City — Opinion of the Court

“ The dispute was amicably settled by the company's relinquishing its claim to the diagonal 300-foot right of way as plotted, and relocating it, 100 feet wide, parallel to the streets and alleys shown on the city plan. The lots or portions of lots required for the relocation were obtained from the owners by deeds or condemnation. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Owen J. Roberts, Noble v. Oklahoma City — Opinion of the Court

“ Petitioners asserted that the Act of February 18, 1888, and the amending Act of February 13, 1889, made no grant in praesenti of a right of way but merely authorized the company to acquire one by purchase or condemnation; that these statutes applied only to Indian country and not to the public domain ”

Owen J. Roberts

Summary

Quotes from Noble v. Oklahoma City — Opinion of the Court (Owen J. Roberts)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature