Craig v. Radford
Craig et al. v. Radford, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 594 (1818), is a United States Supreme Court decision delivered by Justice Bushrod Washington on March 12, 1818. The dispute arose from a suit in chancery to establish a clear title to land in Kentucky located on the south bank of the Ohio River, 30 miles downriver from the mouth of the Scioto River. A military land warrant for 1,000 acres had been issued by the Colony of Virginia on January 24, 1774 and duly patented by a French and Indian War veteran, William Sutherland. Subsequently, treasury warrants were purchased from the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1780 by Craig et al. which they duly patented over parts of the same property. A suit in the United States Circuit Court for the District of Kentucky awarded unconditional title to the original
Wikipage redirect
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
primaryTopic
Craig v. Radford
Craig et al. v. Radford, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 594 (1818), is a United States Supreme Court decision delivered by Justice Bushrod Washington on March 12, 1818. The dispute arose from a suit in chancery to establish a clear title to land in Kentucky located on the south bank of the Ohio River, 30 miles downriver from the mouth of the Scioto River. A military land warrant for 1,000 acres had been issued by the Colony of Virginia on January 24, 1774 and duly patented by a French and Indian War veteran, William Sutherland. Subsequently, treasury warrants were purchased from the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1780 by Craig et al. which they duly patented over parts of the same property. A suit in the United States Circuit Court for the District of Kentucky awarded unconditional title to the original
has abstract
Craig et al. v. Radford, 16 U. ...... and General Stephen W. Kearny.
@en
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
Wikipage page ID
41,514,455
page length (characters) of wiki page
Wikipage revision ID
1,018,993,109
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
case
Craig v. Radford,
@en
DecideDate
DecideYear
fullname
Craig et. al. v. Radford
@en
Holding
Decree affirmed with costs
@en
JoinMajority
unanimous
@en
justia
Litigants
Craig et. al. v. Radford
@en
majority
Washington
@en
openjurist
ParallelCitations
wikiPageUsesTemplate
subject
comment
Craig et al. v. Radford, 16 U. ...... itional title to the original
@en
label
Craig v. Radford
@en
sameAs
wasDerivedFrom
isPrimaryTopicOf
name
@en
Craig et. al. v. Radford
@en