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

Missouri, Kansas And Texas Railway Company v. Mccann

• 1898 • 174 U.S. 580 • Fuller Court
In the case of Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railway Company v. McCann in 1898, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute regarding land grants for railway construction. The plaintiff, McCann, claimed that he had purchased part of a land grant given to the Pacific Railroad by Congress in 1852. However, this particular piece of land was later granted to another railroad company (Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railway) by an act passed in 1866 due to non-completion of work by Pacific Railroad within...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: 1898
Docket: 11
174 U.S. 580
19 S. Ct. 755
43 L. Ed. 1093
1899 U.S. LEXIS 1519
Argued: Oct 11, 1898

Missouri, Kansas And Texas Railway Company v. Mccann

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railway Company v. McCann in 1898, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute regarding land grants for railway construction. The plaintiff, McCann, claimed that he had purchased part of a land grant given to the Pacific Railroad by Congress in 1852. However, this particular piece of land was later granted to another railroad company (Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railway) by an act passed in 1866 due to non-completion of work by Pacific Railroad within stipulated time frame. The court held that when Congress made its second grant it did so with full knowledge that some parts might have been sold off already but chose not to include any protective provisions for such purchasers like McCann. Therefore, the title remained with Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railway Co., as they were subsequent grantees from Congress who completed their line through these lands before forfeiture proceedings against original grantee could be finalized.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railway Company v. McCann, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings of the court regarding similar issues. He contended that a railway company should be held responsible for damages caused by its negligence or failure to provide safe conditions for passengers, regardless of whether it had contracted out certain services to another party. In this case, he believed that the defendant railway company could not absolve itself from liability simply because it had hired an independent contractor to operate its sleeping cars. The fact remained that these cars were part of their trains and they owed a duty of care towards their passengers who used them.

Opinion written by Justice EDEWhite
Decided: May 22, 1899
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