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.
Lake Superior Ship Canal, Railway and Iron Company v. Finan, 1894 — 155 U.S. 385 · caselaw · US
General
Lake Superior Ship Canal, Railway and Iron Company v. Finan
155 U.S. 38539 L. Ed. 194·Supreme Court of the United States·1894
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
Lake Superior Ship Canal, Railway and Iron Company v. Finan.
Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Michigan.
No. 50.
Argued November 2, 5, 1894.
Decided December 10, 1894.
Mr. John F. Dillon for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Don M. Dickinson for defendant in error.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice Brewer.]
Mr. Justice Brewer.
This case differs from the preceding, in that the action was commenced March 21, 1889, and that Finan, the defendant, did not enter upon the tract in controversy until after the 1st of May, 1888. His entry and occupation gave him no rights to the -land, because it was embraced within the railroad grant of 1856. He took nothing under the confirmatory act of 1889, because he was not a bona fide claimant or in actual occupation on the 1st of May, 1888. The land was selected and certified to the State for the benefit of the canal company, and was within the scope of the confirmation to the company by the’ act of 1889. The title of the company was, therefore, perfect as against him. The judgment of the Circuit Court must, therefore, be
Reversed, and the case remanded.for a new trial.