The phrase "assert title" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in contexts where someone is claiming or stating ownership or authority over a title, such as in legal or formal documents.
Example: "In order to proceed with the claim, the applicant must assert title to the property in question."
Alternatives: "claim title" or "declare title".
It asserts Title II jurisdiction over the carriage components of broadband, but preemptively and extensively forebears from most regulations that could in principle be enforced under that definition.
The plaintiff below, the Northern Pacific Railroad Company, asserted title to the premises under a grant made by the act of congress of July 2 , 1864
The plaintiff asserts title to the premises by a patent of the United States issued to him in 1866, under the act of Congress of Sept. 27, 1850, usually known as the Donation Law of Oregon.
NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. ABNER TOWNSEND et al. This controversy concerns the validity of an asserted title, by adverse possession, to a portion of the right of way in Wadena county, Minnesota, granted to the Northern Pacific Railroad Company, its successors and assigns, by the 2d section of the act of Congress approved July 2 , 1864
Conceding the adverse possession and its efficacy under the state law as against the railroad right of way to be as found by the state court, the sole question which arises, then, for decision is whether, in view of the provisions of the act of Congress to which we have referred, an asserted title by adverse possession can be made efficacious as respects the property in controversy.
And there are actions typically taken after a deed has been delivered that can significantly affect the ability of the grantee to assert claim of title to the property over anyone else claiming an ownership interest.
If they obtained the Indian title, there were none to assert the title of the crown.
The complainant does not assert a title to it, but at most only an equitable right to have it applied to just claims for labor and materials, for which the complainant is liable as the bankrupt's surety under the act of August 13 , 1894 supra.
The protection of the innocent was further developed to cover situations where the title owner had not conveyed even a voidable title, but had so clothed the transferor with apparent vestiges of authority and indicia of title that equitable principles of estoppel were invoked to preclude the title owner from asserting his title.
Hence, so far as the water rights are concerned, we think it is not proper to analogize this case to one where the United States acquires property within a State and asserts its title against the State as well as others.
