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.
General
UNITED STATES v. DREW
131 U.S. 2133 L. Ed. 93·Supreme Court of the United States·1889
Mr. Justice Miller and Mr. Justice Field dissented, for the reasons stated in their dissent in United States v. Jones.
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
UNITED STATES v. DREW.
error to the circuit court of the united states for the WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA.
No. 1061.
Argued January 28, 29,1889. —
Decided May 13, 1889.
United States v. Jones, ante, 1, affirmed and applied to this case.
The case is stated in tHe opinion.
Mr. Solicitor General for plaintiff in error.
Mr. James L. 'Bradford for defendant in error.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice Bradley]
Mr. Justice Bradley
delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a suit in equity brought against the United States to establish the claim of the plaintiff to have land warrants or certificates of location for one thousand and fifteen acres of land made out and delivered to him by way of indemnity and satisfaction for a certain concession or grant of land made by the Spanish governor to one Francisco Adante, in 1788, the land itself having been surveyed as public land by the United States and disposed of to purchasers. The claim is made under the provisions of the act of June 2d, 1858, entitled “An act to provide for the location of certain confirmed private land claims of the State of Missouri, and for other purposes,” 11 Stat. 294, the claim in question having been confirmed by act of Congress passed February 28, 1823, 3 Stat. 727. The suit is subject to the same objections which exist in relation to the suits of Carrie Jones and others, just disposed of, and the same decree must be made as in those cases.
The decree of the Circuit Court is reversed, am,d the cause rema/nded, with instructions to dismiss the originad petition or hill.
Mr. Justice Miller and Mr. Justice Field dissented, for the reasons stated in their dissent in United States v. Jones.