Daniels v. Craddock, 237 U.S. 574 (1915)
U.S. Supreme Court
Daniels v. Craddock, 237 U.S. 574 (1915)Daniels v. Craddock
No. 248
Argued April 21, 22, 1915
Decided June 1, 1915
237 U.S. 574
Syllabus
Decided on authority of Daniels v. Wagner, ante, p. 237 U. S. 547.
205 F. 235 reversed.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
U.S. Supreme Court
Daniels v. Craddock, 237 U.S. 574 (1915)Daniels v. Craddock
No. 248
Argued April 21, 22, 1915
Decided June 1, 1915
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Syllabus
Decided on authority of Daniels v. Wagner, ante, p. 237 U. S. 547.
205 F. 235 reversed.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.
Included among the fifteen cases which were argued by the appellant in a single brief, this case was separately argued by the appellees. The brief pressed upon our attention seven propositions, all of which we are of opinion
are disposed of by the views announced in Daniels v. Wagner, ante, p. 237 U. S. 547 (No. 239), since the propositions all in substance either conflict with the finding of the Secretary of the Interior as to the performance by the lieu applicants of every essential requirement to entitle them to make the entry, or directly or indirectly assert the possession by the Land Department at least as to the lieu entries, of the discretionary power which was asserted and recognized by the court below. It follows, therefore that, for the reasons here stated and those expressed in No. 239, the judgment must be, and it is, reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this and the opinion in Daniels v. Wagner, ante, p. 237 U. S. 547.
Reversed.
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.