EDWARD HINES YELLOW PINE TRUSTEES V. MARTIN, 268 U. S. 458 (1925)
Subscribe to Cases that cite 268 U. S. 458
Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/268/458/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/268/458/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
Edward Hines Yellow Pine Trustees v. Martin, 268 U.S. 458 (1925)
Edward Hines Yellow Pine Trustees v. Martin
No. 363
Argued May 1, 1925
Decided May 25, 1925
268 U.S. 458
Syllabus
1. Where a construction of a state statute affecting title to real estate has been repeatedly determined by decisions of the state courts and thus established as a rule of property in the state, the federal courts will follow those decisions without inquiring into the justice and sufficiency of the rule as an original proposition. P. 268 U. S. 462.
2. Petitioners claimed title to land in Mississippi under a patent issued to a corporation under an act of the state legislature incorporating it and providing that the corporation should, within 60 days after the passage of the act, file with the Secretary of State a bond in a specified amount "with two or more good securities," and that, upon approval and filing of the bond, patents should be issued, upon demand of the company, signed by the Governor and countersigned by the Secretary of State. The state supreme court having repeatedly decided that a patent so issued was void because the bond filed and approved was executed by individuals only, and not by the corporation, and was therefore not a compliance with the statute, held that the rule thus established should be followed in a case arising in the federal court. P. 268 U. S. 457.
296 F.4d 2 affirmed.
Certiorari to a decree of the circuit court of appeals which affirmed a decree rendered by the district court for the respondents in consolidated suits to quiet title brought by the petitioners.