 | 1904 - 906 strani
...the legal title was in the city, it was an absolute title. In view of the extreme unwillingness of courts to admit the existence of a common-law condition,..."condition" is used, it needs no argument to show that there waa no condition or limitation here. Stuart v. Eastern, 170 US 383, 42 L. ed. 1078, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep.... | |
 | 1905 - 1270 strani
...view of the extreme unwillingness of courts to admit the existence of a common-law condition, even if the word 'condition' is used, it needs no argument...show that there was no condition or limitation here. Little more needs to be said to show that the act of Congress did not make the land inalienable at... | |
 | 1907 - 1282 strani
...the legal title was in the city, it was an absolute title. In view of the extreme unwillingness of courts to admit the existence of a common-law condition,...show that there was no condition or limitation here. . . . Little more needs to be said to show that the aot of Congress did not make the land inalienable... | |
 | 1916 - 1348 strani
...subject. mon-law condition, even when the word 'condi- pellants there brought an action to enjoin tion' is used, it needs no argument to show that there was...no condition or limitation here. Stuart v. Easton, 170 Г. S. 383, 18 Sup. Ct. (¡00, the city from diverting the use of certain lands to another purpose... | |
 | 1916 - 1222 strani
...the legal title was in the city, it was an absolute title. In view of the extreme unwillingness of courts to admit the existence of a common-law condition, even when the word 'condition' is used, it needs 110 argument to show that there was no comlitiou or limitation here. Stuart v. Easton, 17Ü U. 8. 383,... | |
 | United States. Supreme Court - 1904 - 1384 strani
...the legal title was in the city, it was an absolute title. In view of the extreme unwillingness of courts to admit the existence of a common-law condition,...no argument to show that there was no condition or 191 U. 8. limitation here, gtuart v. Easton, 170 US 383, 42 L. ed. 1078, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 650. Little... | |
 | 1916 - 1350 strani
...the legal title was in the city, it was an absolute title. In view of the extreme unwillingness of courts to admit the existence of a common-law condition,...there was no condition or limitation here. Stuart v. Kaston, 170 US 3S3, 18 Sup. Ct. UOO, 4Ü L. Ed. 1078. Little more needs to be said to show that the... | |
 | United States. Supreme Court - 1926 - 1148 strani
...was an absolute title. In view of the extreme unwillingness of courts to admit the existence of я common-law condition, even when the word "condition"...no argument to show that there was no condition or 191 US limitation here. Stuart v. Easton, 170 US .48.4, 42 L. ed. 1078, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. ОГ>0. Little... | |
| |
Little more needs to be said to show that the act of Congress did not make the land inalienable at common law. We need not consider whether the act could have that effect upon land within a State... 