U S v. SEWELL, 217 U.S. 601 (1910)

Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations
Read more

U.S. Supreme Court

U S v. SEWELL, 217 U.S. 601 (1910)

217 U.S. 601

UNITED STATES, Plff. in Err.,
v.
LIZZIE SEWELL and George B. Wood Sewell.
No. 181.

Argued April 29, 1910.
Decided May 31, 1910.

Page 217 U.S. 601, 602

Assistant Attorney General John Q. Thompson and Messrs. W. W. Scott and P. M. Cox for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Edward S. Jouett for defendants in error.

Per Curiam:

The judgment is affirmed on the authority of United States v. Welch ( decided April 25, 1910) 217 U.S. 333, 54 L. ed. --, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 527; but it is ordered that before the government is required to pay for the land held to have been taken, plaintiffs below shall furnish a survey definitely ascertaining the land by metes and bounds.

Affirmed.


U.S. Supreme Court

U S v. SEWELL, 217 U.S. 601 (1910)

217 U.S. 601

UNITED STATES, Plff. in Err.,
v.
LIZZIE SEWELL and George B. Wood Sewell.
No. 181.

Argued April 29, 1910.
Decided May 31, 1910.

Page 217 U.S. 601, 602

Assistant Attorney General John Q. Thompson and Messrs. W. W. Scott and P. M. Cox for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Edward S. Jouett for defendants in error.

Per Curiam:

The judgment is affirmed on the authority of United States v. Welch ( decided April 25, 1910) 217 U.S. 333, 54 L. ed. --, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 527; but it is ordered that before the government is required to pay for the land held to have been taken, plaintiffs below shall furnish a survey definitely ascertaining the land by metes and bounds.

Affirmed.

Disclaimer: 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.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.