Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Gaines et al. v. Hale et al., 1876 — 93 U.S. 3 · caselaw · US
General
Gaines et al. v. Hale et al.
93 U.S. 323 L. Ed. 782·Supreme Court of the United States·1876
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Gaines et al. v. Hale et al.
Where, in a suit between some of the claimants to the hot springs in Arkansas, the Supreme Court of that State by its decree refused aid to any of them against the other, except as to the improvements erected by each respectively on the property, and as to them saved the rights of the United States, this court, having decided in Hot Springs Cases, 92 U. S. 698, that the United States is the owner of the property, affirms' that decree.
Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Arkansas.
Submitted on- printed arguments by Mr. W. M. Bose for the plaintiffs in error, and by Mr. Albert Pike, Mr. B. W. Johnson, Mr. J. B. Sanborn, and Mr. Frederick P. Stanton, for the defendants in error.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice Bradley]
Mr. Justice Bradley
delivered the opinion of the court.
The decision made by this court in Sot Springs Oases at the last term, 92 U. S. 698, has disposed of the principal controversy bet'weén the parties in this case, by declaring that neither of them is entitled to the land in question^ and that the same belongs to the United States. As the decree of the Supreme Court of Arkansas, in the present case, does not contravene this decision, but refuses aid to any of the parties against each other, except as to the improvements erected by each respectively, and as to these, saves the rights of the United States, we do not perceive any error in said decree on any Federal question. Decree affirmed.