| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

In the case of Bass v. Taft, 1890, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with deciding on a dispute involving land ownership and inheritance laws in Louisiana. The plaintiff, Bass, claimed that he had rightful ownership to certain lands based on an old Spanish grant which predated Louisiana's admission into the Union. He argued that this claim superseded any subsequent state legislation regarding inheritance rights. However, his claims were disputed by Taft who asserted her own right to inherit under more recent state law provisions. The court ruled against Bass stating that when Louisiana became a part of United States territory through purchase from France in 1803 (Louisiana Purchase), all previous grants of land made by Spain or France within its limits became subject to US federal law and later state legislation unless they had been confirmed by competent authority before the transfer took place. Therefore, since there was no evidence showing such confirmation for Bass' alleged Spanish grant prior to 1803 - it could not be recognized as valid against subsequent bona fide purchasers or heirs according to local laws enacted after Louisiana’s incorporation into USA. Thus upholding Taft's right over the contested property.
In the dissenting opinion for Bass v. Taft, it was argued that the majority's decision to affirm a lower court ruling in favor of an individual who had purchased land from a railroad company conflicted with previous Supreme Court decisions and federal law. The dissenting justices contended that under existing legislation, railroads were not authorized to sell lands granted to them by Congress until they had fulfilled their obligations as common carriers. They believed this rule applied even if the purchaser acted in good faith without knowledge of any encumbrances on the property. Therefore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "good faith" purchases and asserted that such transactions should be nullified if made before completion of railway construction or payment of mortgage debts owed by rail companies to federal government.