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

Wight v. United States

• 1896 • 167 U.S. 512 • Fuller Court
In the 1896 case of Wight v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning land ownership and mining rights in Colorado. The plaintiff, Wight, had purchased land from a railroad company that was originally granted to it by an act of Congress. However, this particular piece of land contained valuable mineral deposits which were discovered after its sale to Wight. Under federal law at that time (the Mining Act), all valuable mineral lands were excluded from such grants made by...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: 1896
Docket: 494
167 U.S. 512
17 S. Ct. 822
42 L. Ed. 258
1897 U.S. LEXIS 2113
Argued: Nov 05, 1896

Wight v. United States

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the 1896 case of Wight v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning land ownership and mining rights in Colorado. The plaintiff, Wight, had purchased land from a railroad company that was originally granted to it by an act of Congress. However, this particular piece of land contained valuable mineral deposits which were discovered after its sale to Wight. Under federal law at that time (the Mining Act), all valuable mineral lands were excluded from such grants made by Congress and reserved for public acquisition through mining claims or other means. The defendant in this case was a miner who staked out a claim on part of the property sold to Wight under provisions set forth in the Mining Act. When sued by Wight for trespassing, he argued his actions were legal due to these provisions. The Supreme Court sided with the miner-defendant stating that even though there may have been no known existence of minerals when initially transferred from government ownership; once their presence became known later on they fell within purview of laws governing public domain lands containing precious metals - thus making them available for claiming under those same laws regardless if someone else owned surface rights above them.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Wight v. United States, 1896, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax on legacies and distributive shares of personal property was unconstitutional. He contended that this tax was not an excise or duty but rather a direct tax on property after death, which should be apportioned among states according to their population as required by Article I Section 9 of the Constitution. In his view, allowing such taxation would open up possibilities for federal interference in state matters and could lead to unequal distribution of taxes among citizens depending upon their location or circumstances at death. Furthermore, he believed it violated principles of uniformity since only those who died possessed were subject to it while others escaped entirely from its burden.

Opinion written by Justice DJBrewer
Decided: May 24, 1897
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