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

Wilson v. Iseminger

• 1901 • 185 U.S. 55 • Fuller Court
In the case of Wilson v. Iseminger, 1901, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land patents and their expiration dates. The plaintiff, Wilson, argued that he had acquired rights to certain lands under an Act passed by Congress in 1872 which granted pre-emption rights to settlers on public lands for five years after they were surveyed and opened for settlement. However, another Act was passed in 1891 which declared all unclaimed land patents expired if not claimed within seven...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: 1901
Docket: 193
185 U.S. 55
22 S. Ct. 573
46 L. Ed. 804
1902 U.S. LEXIS 2240
Argued: Mar 19, 1902

Wilson v. Iseminger

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Wilson v. Iseminger, 1901, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land patents and their expiration dates. The plaintiff, Wilson, argued that he had acquired rights to certain lands under an Act passed by Congress in 1872 which granted pre-emption rights to settlers on public lands for five years after they were surveyed and opened for settlement. However, another Act was passed in 1891 which declared all unclaimed land patents expired if not claimed within seven years from when they were first made available. Wilson filed his claim more than seven years after the land became open but less than five years since he began settling it; hence falling foul of the new law but still within time according to old one. He sued Iseminger who had subsequently obtained patent over same piece of property arguing that application of newer law retroactively impaired his vested right under older statute. The court disagreed with Wilson's argument stating that there is no contract between government and settler until final proof has been accepted and certificate issued; thus no vested right existed at time newer act came into effect making it applicable without any constitutional violation.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Wilson v. Iseminger, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision violated a fundamental principle of justice by applying retroactively a statute of limitations to bar claims which were valid at the time they arose. He contended that when Congress enacted this law, it did not intend for it to apply retrospectively and thus extinguish existing rights without providing any alternative remedy or compensation. Furthermore, he asserted that even if Congress had intended such an application, it would be unconstitutional as it deprives individuals of their property without due process of law. In his view, once a right has been recognized and vested under existing laws, no subsequent legislation should be able to take away or impair that right unless there is clear legislative intent and provision made for just compensation or substitution.

Opinion written by Justice GShiras
Decided: Apr 07, 1902
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