Union Pacific R. Co. v. Sides
231 U.S. 213 (1913)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Union Pacific R. Co. v. Sides, 231 U.S. 213 (1913)

Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Sides

No. 683

Submitted October 14, 1913

Decided December 1, 1913

231 U.S. 213

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE STATE OF COLORADO

Syllabus

Decided on the authority of Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Snow, ante, p. 231 U. S. 204.

133 P.Rep. 1040, reversed.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Page 231 U. S. 214

MR. JUSTICE McKENNA delivered the opinion of the Court.

Action in ejectment, brought by plaintiff in error, called here plaintiff, against defendants in error, here called defendants, in the District Court of Arapahoe County, State of Colorado.

Except as to the description of the land the complaint is substantially the same as that in No. 682, and presents the same legal rights and titles. Defendant Sides demurred to the complaint; Scherrer denied being in possession of the land and disclaimed any claim to it. The demurrer was overruled and Scherrer answered, setting up defenses which are in substance the same as in No. 682. To the defenses plaintiff filed demurrers, which were sustained. Sides elected to plead no further, and the case coming on for trial and certain facts being agreed upon as testified to, objection to the materiality of which was made, motions to dismiss and for judgment were also made and overruled. Judgment was entered for plaintiff. It was reversed by the supreme court of the state for the reasons stated in its opinion in Snow v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 55 Colo. 175, that is, No. 682, ante, p. 231 U. S. 204, 55 Colo. 174.

This case was submitted with No. 682, involves the same questions, and is determined by its decision.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.

MR. JUSTICE HUGHES dissents.

MR. JUSTICE HOLMES and MR. JUSTICE PITNEY took no part in the decision.

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.