Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Evans v. Stettnisch

• 1892 • 149 U.S. 605 • Fuller Court
In the 1892 case of Evans v. Stettnisch, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and mineral rights in Colorado. The plaintiff, Evans, had purchased mining property from a man named Chaffee who had previously obtained it through a patent issued by the United States government under its Mining Acts. However, before selling to Evans, Chaffee leased part of this property to Stettnisch for ten years with an option to buy at any time during that period. When Stettnisch...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Fuller Court
Term: 1892
Docket: 279
149 U.S. 605
13 S. Ct. 931
37 L. Ed. 866
1893 U.S. LEXIS 2330

Evans v. Stettnisch

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the 1892 case of Evans v. Stettnisch, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and mineral rights in Colorado. The plaintiff, Evans, had purchased mining property from a man named Chaffee who had previously obtained it through a patent issued by the United States government under its Mining Acts. However, before selling to Evans, Chaffee leased part of this property to Stettnisch for ten years with an option to buy at any time during that period. When Stettnisch attempted to exercise his purchase option after learning about the sale between Chaffee and Evans, he was denied by both parties leading him to file suit claiming rightful ownership based on his lease agreement with Chaffee. The court held that while federal law did allow for leasing of such lands without affecting their status as mining claims (thus not invalidating leases made prior), once patented these properties became private real estate subject only state laws which could potentially invalidate such leases if they were deemed contrary public policy or otherwise unlawful under local statutes - something which was not determined here since no evidence regarding relevant Colorado law was presented at trial level nor argued before them on appeal; therefore remanding case back down lower courts so those issues might be properly addressed there first.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

The dissenting opinion in the case of Evans v. Stettnisch argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established legal principles regarding property rights and contracts. The dissent contended that, under Texas law, a debtor could not be deprived of their homestead without their consent unless it was to satisfy a debt for which the homestead had been pledged as security. In this case, there was no evidence to suggest that Evans had ever agreed to pledge his homestead as security for his debt to Stettnisch or any other creditor. Therefore, according to the dissenters, seizing and selling Evans' home violated both Texas law and fundamental principles of justice by depriving him of his property without due process of law.

Opinion written by Justice DJBrewer
Decided: May 10, 1893
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms