Summary

Straus v. Foxworth — Opinion of the Court

At least, we cannot say that it was manifestly wrong, as must be done to justify us in rejecting the local interpretation of a territorial statute. Fox v. Haarstick, 156 U.S. 674, 679, 39 L. ed. 576, 578, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 457; Treat v. Grand Canyon R. Co. 222 U.S. 448, 452, 56 L. ed. 265, 266, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 125. Of course, the provision was intended to have some operation and effect, and it hardly could have any if restricted to sales made in accordance with the act, in the stricter sense, for such sales would be as valid without the provision as with it.
Source: Wikisource

Straus v. Foxworth — Opinion of the Court

This was a suit to quiet the title to three tracts of land in Quay county, in the territory of New Mexico. In the court of first instance a demurrer to the complaint was sustained, and the plaintiff declining to amend, a decree of dismissal was entered, which subsequently was affirmed by the supreme court of the territory. 16 N. M. 442, —L.R.A. (N.S.) --, 117 Pac. 831. An appeal from the decree of affirmance brings the case here, under the act of March 3, 1885, 23 Stat. at L. 443, chap. 355, U.S.C.omp. Stat. 1901, p. 572.
The complaint purported to state four causes of action.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature