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

Knapp v. Alexander-edgar Lumber Company

• 1914 • 237 U.S. 162 • White Court
In the case of Knapp v. Alexander-Edgar Lumber Company, 1914, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership and timber rights in Louisiana. The plaintiff, Knapp, claimed that he had purchased the property from its original owners before they sold it to the defendant company. However, due to an error in recording his purchase at the local courthouse by his attorney's clerk who was illiterate and mistakenly recorded another tract of land instead of this one; there was no official...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 White Court
Term: 1914
Docket: 139
237 U.S. 162
35 S. Ct. 515
59 L. Ed. 894
1915 U.S. LEXIS 1322

Knapp v. Alexander-edgar Lumber Company

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Knapp v. Alexander-Edgar Lumber Company, 1914, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership and timber rights in Louisiana. The plaintiff, Knapp, claimed that he had purchased the property from its original owners before they sold it to the defendant company. However, due to an error in recording his purchase at the local courthouse by his attorney's clerk who was illiterate and mistakenly recorded another tract of land instead of this one; there was no official record proving his claim. The defendant company argued that because there was no public record showing Knapp as owner when they bought it from previous owners (who were unaware about sale to Knapp), their purchase should be considered valid under Louisiana law which prioritizes public records for determining ownership disputes. After considering all arguments and evidence presented by both parties including testimonies confirming sale to Knapp first but also acknowledging recording mistake later on; court ruled in favor of defendant lumber company stating that despite being unfortunate victim of circumstances beyond control like illness or illiteracy causing errors during legal procedures; such mistakes cannot override importance given by state laws towards maintaining accurate public records for resolving property disputes fairly.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Knapp v. Alexander-Edgar Lumber Company, it was argued that there should be a distinction between an injury caused by negligence and one resulting from a violation of statutory duty. The justice disagreed with the majority's view that Mr. Knapp had assumed risk when he continued to work in hazardous conditions without protest or complaint, stating this assumption could not absolve his employer from liability for violating safety regulations which led to his injury. Furthermore, they contended that if employers were allowed to evade responsibility on such grounds, it would render these laws ineffective and defeat their purpose - protecting workers' safety rights.

Opinion written by Justice MPitney
Decided: Apr 05, 1915
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