Redfield v. Parks
132 U.S. 239 (1889)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Redfield v. Parks, 132 U.S. 239 (1889)

Redfield v. Parks

No. 27

Submitted November 5, 1889

Decided November 18, 1889

132 U.S. 239

Syllabus

In the courts of the United States, an action of ejectment is an action at law, and the plaintiff must recover on the legal title.

While the title to public land is still in the United States, no adverse possession of it can, under a state statute of limitations, confer a title which will prevail in an action of ejectment in the courts of the United States against the legal title under a patent from the United States.

A deed of land sold for nonpayment of taxes which recites that the sale was made on a day which was not the day authorized by law is void on its face, and is not admissible in evidence to support an adverse possession under a statute of limitations.

This cause was submitted April 15, 1889 at the last term, the briefs of counsel for both parties having been filed in due course with the clerk of this Court. The Court thereupon

Page 132 U. S. 240

refused to consider the case on its merits for the reason that the record did not contain copies of the pleadings, and leave was granted to the plaintiff in error to sue out a writ of certiorari to bring into this Court the papers omitted from the transcript. Redfield v. Parks,130 U. S. 623. Such certiorari was then sued out, and return thereto duly made. The case made by the original record and the papers brought up on return to the certiorari is stated in the opinion of the Court.

On the 15th of October of the present term, the counsel for the plaintiff in error moved for leave to file an additional brief and for leave to have an oral argument when the cause should be reached on the docket. The court on October 16th granted the counsel on both sides leave to file additional briefs, but denied the motion as to oral arguments.

Page 132 U. S. 241

Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.