Summary

Portrait of Stephen Johnson Field Stephen Johnson Field Christy v. Pridgeon — Opinion of the Court

Guy, [2] 'must furnish the rule of decision of this court, as far as they comport with the Constitution of the United States, in all cases arising within the respective States, is a position that no one doubts. Nor is it questionable that a fixed and received construction of their respective statute laws, in their own courts, makes, in fact, a part of the statute law of the country, however we may doubt the propriety of that construction.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Stephen Johnson Field Stephen Johnson Field Christy v. Pridgeon — Opinion of the Court

The power of the Governor of Coahuila and Texas to make the grant was derived from the Mexican colonization law of August 18th, 1824, and the legislation of the State, which that law authorized. The object of that law was to induce the settlement of the vacant lands of the Republic. To this end the several States were empowered, under certain restrictions, to provide for the colonization of the lands within their limits.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Stephen Johnson Field Stephen Johnson Field Christy v. Pridgeon — Opinion of the Court

A series of decisions to this purport, from an early history of the State down to the present time, is found in the reports of her courts. These decisions have become a rule of property in that State, any departure from which would disturb titles to extensive and densely settled districts of country. [3] We receive them, therefore, to quote the language of this court, in League v.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature