Stephen Johnson Field

Name: Stark v. Starr — Opinion of the Court
Author: Stephen Johnson Field

Summary

“Stark v. Starr — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Stephen Johnson Field. It explores elements such as Stark, the United States and patent.

Quotes from Stark v. Starr — Opinion of the Court (Stephen Johnson Field)

Stephen Johnson Field, Stark v. Starr — Opinion of the Court

“ If in the light of these facts, and all the attending circumstances, the defendant could now successfully impugn the ratification made by his attorney, deny the promises made by himself, and deprive the complainant of the property and improvements, it would be a reproach to the administration of justice. Upon every principle of law and morals, he should be for ever enjoined from the commission of such injustice, and be compelled to quiet the title of the complainant by a release of all claim to the premises. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Stephen Johnson Field, Stark v. Starr — Opinion of the Court

“ A decision upon one could not possibly be a bar to proceedings upon the other, from their intrinsically distinct nature. Having required the complainants to proceed in that suit only upon one cause or ground for relief, the court left the other cause open for any future suit which they might choose to bring.
To appreciate and give proper effect to the agreement made by Stark with parties through whom the complainant derives his interest, and upon which he founds his claim to equitable relief in this suit, reference must be had to the condition on which land in Oregon was held at that time. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Stephen Johnson Field, Stark v. Starr — Opinion of the Court

“ They not only occupied, cultivated, and improved such portions as their necessities required, but they bought and sold it as land is bought and sold where the title has passed out of the government. This dealing in the land without having the title arose necessarily from the settlement of the country before the laws of the United States were extended over it. Indeed, a large number of emigrants from the United States had settled in the country whilst its sovereignty was in dispute with Great Britain. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Stephen Johnson Field, Stark v. Starr — Opinion of the Court

“ A portion of them was purchased from him by the complainant and his brother. The rest of the premises was afterwards purchased by them from intermediate parties. They were all acquired before the patent of the United States was issued to Stark. The different purchasers went at once into possession; and they or their grantees have ever since, either by themselves or tenants, been in the occupation of the property, and have made extensive and valuable improvements. The property is situated in the business part of Portland, and has always been occupied for business purposes. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Stephen Johnson Field, Stark v. Starr — Opinion of the Court

“ They thereupon brought a suit in equity in the State court to compel a release of his interest. In their bill, which was filed in January, 1864, they set forth their long and peaceable possession; that they had made large and valuable improvements; that the defendant asserted title to the premises under his patent, and threatened suits for their recovery; and stated the conveyances under which they claimed, and the agreement upon which they founded their right to a release of his interest; and they prayed a decree compelling such release. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Stephen Johnson Field, Stark v. Starr — Opinion of the Court

“ The inhabitants engaged in the pursuits, industries, and enterprises which might be expected from an active, intelligent, and moral people. For the preservation of order and security, they were obliged to make some regulations for the possession and occupation of land among themselves. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Stephen Johnson Field, Stark v. Starr — Opinion of the Court

“ This latter block lies north of the dividing line, within the tract falling to Stark, and embraces the premises in controversy. The assignment of this block is contained in a deed purporting to be a conveyance by Chapman, Coffin, and Lownsdale,-the latter by Chapman, his attorney. As a conveyance of any interest to Chapman from Lownsdale, it is waste paper. An attorney cannot convey to himself by a power from his principal. ”

Stephen Johnson Field

Summary

Quotes from Stark v. Starr — Opinion of the Court (Stephen Johnson Field)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature