Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Hasse 197 U.S. 9

← Cases

Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Hasse

197 U.S. 9 Court SCOTUS Decision date 1905-02-20 Docket No. 118 English

Judges Mr. Justice Harlan dissented.

Delivered by Fuller C.J.

Contents

Majority — Fuller C.J.

p. 9
NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY v. HASSE.

Syllabus

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON.
No. 118.
Submitted January 6, 1905.
Decided February 20, 1905.
This'case is governed by the'decision in Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Townsend, 190 U. S. 267 , and. Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Ely, ante, p. 1.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Mr. C. W. Bunn and Mr.. James B. Kerr for plaintiff- in error. ■ '
There was no appearance or brief filed for -defendants in error.

delivered the opinion of the court.-

This was an action of ejectment brought by the Norther; Pacific Railway. Company in the Superior Court of Kittjtai

p. 10
County, Washington, to recover possession of part of its right of way, the land being partly within and partly without a right of way of two hundred feet in width. Defendants asserted title by virtue of a homestead application, filed May 24, 1883, final proof July 12,1888, and patent September 27,1889;- and adverse possession for the period named in the statute of limitations. Judgment was entered in favor of the. railway company, and 'defendants carried the case by appeal to the Supreme Court of Washington, which held the statute of limitations applicable, reversed the judgment below and remanded the case with directions to dismiss the action. 28 Washington, 353.

The grant of right of way, unlike the land grant, was effective from the date of the act, and the fact that the railroad was not built until after defendants’ entry does not affect the disposition of the case. Railroad Company v. Baldwin, 103 U. S. 426 ; Bybee v. Oregon & California Railroad Company, 139 U. S. 663 , 679. .

The judgment must be reversed‘on the authority of Northern Pacific Railway Company, v. Townsend, 190 U. S. 267 , and remanded for further proceedings hot inconsistent with the opinion of this court in Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Ely, ante, p. 1.

Judgment reversed.

Mr. Justice Harlan dissented.

Cases cited