Portal:Supreme Court of the United States

Summary

Portal:Supreme Court of the United States Burke v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company…

Does a patent to a railroad company under a grant which excludes mineral lands, as in the present case, but which is issued without any investigation upon the part of the officers of the Land Office or of the Department of the Interior as to the quality of the land, whether agricultural or mineral, and without hearing upon or determination of the quality of the lands, operate to convey lands which are thereafter ascertained to be mineral?
Source: Wikisource

Portal:Supreme Court of the United States Burke v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company…

Petroleum has long been popularly regarded as a mineral oil. As its derivation indicates, the word means 'rock oil,' an oily substance so named because found naturally oozing from crevices in rocks. Its existence in this country was known from very early times, and when this and other railroad land grants, containing an exception of mineral lands, were made, the extraction of oil from its natural reservoir in subterranean rocks had come to be a promising industry and was extending over an increasing area through discoveries of new oil fields.
Source: Wikisource

Portal:Supreme Court of the United States Burke v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company…

He had applied to the Land Department to enter the claim under the mining law, and his application had been rejected because the patent was outstanding. In granting the injunction the court said (p. 206) : 'The lands are either patentable under the act or they are not. If patentable, the issue of a patent is authorized. If not patentable, it is unauthorized, and the issue of a patent is, clearly, as conclusive evidence of the determination of the fact of patentability, upon a collateral attack, in the one case as in the other. Suppose it should afterwards turn out that all is mineral land.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature