Craig v. Radford
1818 United States Supreme Court case
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 Sutherland patent. An appeal was argued before the Supreme Court during the 1817 term but the verdict upheld the lower court's decision. Non-citizen property rights established by this case have been cited and argued ever since.
This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Craig v. Radford” as 1818 United States Supreme Court case. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.
Why this record matters
The subject matters to the general reference register because the source frames it as 1818 United States Supreme Court case. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 17, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q17507530. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1818, 1774, 1780 and 1817.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Craig v. Radford”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Craig v. Radford primary sources, Craig v. Radford archive and Craig research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Craig v. Radford”?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Craig v. Radford” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.