Grant v. Parker

2 Citing cases

  1. Sawyer v. Osterhaus

    212 F. 765 (N.D. Cal. 1914)   Cited 2 times

    Again, in Chandler v. Calumet & Hecla Mining Co., 149 U.S. 79, 13 Sup.Ct. 798, 37 L.Ed. 657, referring to the doctrine announced in the Smith Case, it is said: 'But aside from this, the rule as to oral evidence, recognized in that case, was afterwards explained, and limited in its operation to cases in which there had been nonaction or refusal to act on the part of the Secretary of the Interior in selecting lands granted, as appears in the subsequent cases of French v. Fyan, 93 U.S. 169, 173 (23 L.Ed. 812), and Ehrhardt v. Hogaboom, 115 U.S. 67, 69 (5 Sup.Ct. 1157, 29 L.Ed. 346), where parol evidence was offered to show that patented lands were not of the character described.' See, also, McCormick v. Hayes, supra; Rogers Locomotive Works v. Emigrant Co., supra; and United States v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co., supra.

  2. Reeves et al. v. Oregon Exploration Co.

    127 Or. 686 (Or. 1929)   Cited 2 times

    " Of the same import, said the court in Burke v. Southern Pac. R.R. Co., 234 U.S. 669, 693 ( 58 L.Ed. 1527, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 907), are Cooper v. Roberts, 18 How. 173, 182 ( 15 L.Ed. 338), Spencer v. Lapsley, 20 How. 264, 273 ( 15 L.Ed. 902), and Ehrhardt v. Hogaboom, 115 U.S. 67, 68 ( 29 L.Ed. 346, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1157). In the Burke case, supra Mr. Justice VAN DEVANTER, on page 692, said: