United States v. Crosby
Cases that cite this one
60 later published cases cite this decision. The 23 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Amaya v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co. (District Court, S.D. Texas 1945)
- Keesecker v. Bird (W. Va. 1997)
- In re McDougal (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1959)
- Gross Income Tax Division v. Bartlett (Ind. 1950)
- Drenttel v. Jensen-Carter (In re Drenttel) (8th Cir. 2005)
- American Security & Trust Co. v. Equitable Life Insurance (D.C. Cir. 1971)
- United States v. Minnesota (D. Minn. 1953)
- United States v. Pink (Supreme Court of the United States 1942)
- Mashunkashey v. Mashunkashey (Okla. 1942)
- Noyes v. Parker (D.C. Cir. 1937)
- In re Klein (D. Minn. 1934)
- Pringle v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (9th Cir. 1933)
- Uravic v. F. Jarka Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1931)
- In re Barnett (2d Cir. 1926)
- Crossett Lumber Co. v. Files (Ark. 1912)
- Williamson v. Majors (5th Cir. 1909)
- Southern Pac. Co. v. Western Pac. Ry. Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California 1906)
- Kane v. Luckman (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Iowa 1904)
- Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Southern Ry. Co. (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western North Carolina 1903)
- Norton v. House of Mercy of New York (5th Cir. 1900)
- Allen v. Allen (Cal. 1892)
- Burbank v. Conrad (Supreme Court of the United States 1878)
- Andrews v. Herriot (New York Supreme Court 1825)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
THIS case is fully stated in the following opinión,of this Court, which was delivered by
Story, Justice, on the 24th of February, judges being present. all ■ . the
A writ of intrusion ivas brought by the United. States against the Defendant in error to recover pos'sesbion of an undivided part of certain land lying, within' the district of Maine. Upon the trial of the cause in the district Court of that district, a special verdict was found by the jury, upon which the same Court gave judgment in favor of the Defendant in error. This judgment wps afterwards affirmed in the Circuit Court of Massachusetts, and is now before the Supreme Court for a final decision.
By the special verdict it appears that the claim of the United States tó the. land in controversy is under on* *116 Nathaniel Dowse, who derived his title, if any, from an instrument stated at large'in the same verdict, and executed in His favor by one John Nelson. The instrnment is 'without a seal and was executed at the Island of Grenada» in the West Indies, before a notary public, according to the mode prescribed, by the existing laws, to pass real estate in that colony — and both parties were, at that time residents therein.
By the laws of Massachusetts, no estate of freehold in land can be conveyed unless by a deed or conveyance under the hand and seal of the party — nod to perfect the title as against strangers, it is further requisite that the deed should be acknowledged before a proper magistrate, and recorded in the registry of deeds for the county where the land lies.
The question presented for consideration, is whether the lex loci contractus or the lex led. rei sitae is to govern in the disposal of real estates.
'The; Court entertain no doubt on the subject; and are clearly of opinion that the title to land can be acquired and lost only in the manner prescribed by the law of the place where such land is situate. The judgment of the Circuit Court must, therefore, he affirmed,.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.