This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this articlebyadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Bicknell v. Comstock" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (July 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Bicknell v. Comstock, 113 U.S. 149 (1885), was an action to recover the cost paid for a tract of land in Iowa and the value of the improvements made by the defendant. The complaint alleged a conveyance by Bicknell to one Bennett, the subsequent transfer to the defendant by sundry mesne conveyances, valuable improvements on the premises made by Bennett and his grantees, and a failure of title in Bicknell, when the deed was made by reason of a superior title in the State of Iowa under a land grant. Judgment below for plaintiff, to reverse which this writ of error was brought.[1]
| Bicknell v. Comstock | |
|---|---|
| |
| Submitted January 8, 1885 Decided January 19, 1885 | |
| Full case name | Bicknell v. Comstock |
| Citations | 113 U.S. 149 (more) 5 S. Ct. 399; 28 L. Ed. 962 |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinion | |
| Majority | Miller, joined by unanimous |
The mutilation (without the consent and against the protest of the grantee) of a land patent for public land by the Commissioner of the United States General Land Office, after its execution and transmission to the grantee, and the like mutilation of the record thereof, do not affect the validity of the patent. A state statute of limitations as to real actions begins to run in favor of a claimant under a patent from the United States on the issue of the patent and its transmission to the grantee.[2]
The lapse of time provided by a statute of limitations as to real actions vests a perfect title in the holder.
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |