Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Abner Townsend
| Decision Date | 04 May 1903 |
| Docket Number | No. 160,160 |
| Citation | 23 S.Ct. 671,47 L.Ed. 1044,190 U.S. 267 |
| Parties | NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err. , v. ABNER TOWNSEND et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
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. 13 Stat. at L. 365, chap. 217. The plaintiff in error, the Northern Pacific Railway Company, a corporation of the state of Wisconsin, acquired the railroad and property of the former named company on or about August 31, 1896, by purchase at a sale under foreclosure of certain mortgages.
By the 1st section of the act of 1864 the Northern Pacific Railroad Company was created a corporation, and was empowered to construct and maintain a continuous railroad and telegraph line from a point on Lake Superior to some point on Puget sound. In the 2d section of the act it was provided, among other things, as follows:
Section 3 created a large land grant to secure the construction and continuous maintenance of the road. Construction was to be supervised by commissioners appointed by the President. Sec. 4. Section 5 provided how the road must be built, and that the company should not charge the government higher rates than individuals. The right of eminent domain was conferred by § 7. In § 8 conditions of the grant in respect to the commencement and completion of the construction of the road were enumerated. Section 9 reserved the right to Congress to complete the road. Section 10 secured to all the people of the United States the right to subscribe for its stock. Section 11 made it a post road subject to the use of the United States for government service, and subject to such regulations as Congress might impose respecting charges for government transportation. The remaining provisions of the act dealt with the mode of acceptance of the grant, the powers and duties of the board of directors and other officers of the company, the payments of cash assessments, and other subjects. We need only further particularly refer, however, to § 18, wherein it was provided that the railroad company, previous to commencing the construction of its road, should obtain the consent of the legislature of any state through which any portion of its line might pass. Such consent was duly given by the state of Minnesota.
The company signified its acceptance in writing, as provided in the act. In November, 1871, the line of road was definitely located, and a duly approved map was filed showing said definite location. This line crossed the northwest quarter of section 24, township 134 north, of range 35 west, of the fifth principal meridian, Minnesota. At that time, as well as prior thereto, said quarter section was public land, to which the United States had full title, and the same was not reserved or otherwise appropriated, nor had any entries or filings or applications to make entry or filing thereon been made. During the years 1870 and 1871 the railroad was duly constructed through the section referred to, and the portion of the road thus constructed was thereafter duly accepted by the President.
In December, 1878, and February, 1882, homestead entries were initiated on said northwest quarter of section 24, and on November 30, 1885, and July 24, 1889, patents, which purported to convey the whole of each 40-acre subdivision, were issued to Abner Townsend and George H. Brown, respectively. Subsequently, in 1886 and 1888, the title to said northwest quarter was conveyed to the defendant in error Minerva Townsend. During the occupancy of the homesteaders, they cultivated up to the line of the ordinary and snow fences of the railroad, situated respectively 50 and 100 feet from the center of the track, and such occupancy continued a sufficient length of time to constitute a title by adverse possession under the limitation statutes of Minnesota. Demand was made by the railroad company for possession of that portion of the quarter section which was within the granted right of way, and, upon non-compliance, an action of ejectment was brought in a court of the state of Minnesota to recover possession of the disputed ground. The case was tried by the court without a jury. Lengthy findings of fact were made, and, as a conclusion of law, the court found that the railroad company was entitled to the possession of the premises described, and entered judgment accordingly.
On appeal the supreme court of Minnesota reversed the judgment of the trial court. 84 Minn. 152, 86 N. W. 1007. The cause was then brought to this court.
Mr. Maxwell Evarts for appellant.
Mr.Charles W. Russell for appellee.
Messrs. C. W. Bunn and James B. Kerr for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Harold Preston, A. G. Broker, and F. T. Post for defendants in error.
Mr. Justice White, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court:
At the outset, we premise that, as the grant of the right of way, the filing of the map of definite location, and the construction of the railroad within the quarter section in question...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boise City v. Wilkinson
......68, 13 P. 408;. McCloskey v. Pacific Coast Co., 160 F. 794, 87 C. C. A. 568; Scully ... company was organized. . . Ex-mayor. ...171, 19. S.Ct. 128, 43 L.Ed. 407; Northern P. R. R. Co. v. Townsend , 190 U.S. 267, 23 ......
-
Dugan v. Montoya
...result of committing it to the consequences which might depend upon such difference.” In a later case (Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Townsend, 190 U. S. 267, 23 Sup. Ct. 671, 47 L. Ed. 1044), Mr. Justice White, speaking for the court, said: “Following decisions of this court construing grants of ......
-
Bromley v. Caughn
...be deemed a denial of the due process clause of the Fifth. See Van Oster v. Kansas, 272 U. S. 465, 468, 47 S. Ct. 133, 71 L. Ed. 354, 47 L. Ed. 1044. It is suggested that the schemes of graduation and exemption in the present statute, by which the tax levied upon donors of the same total am......
-
United States v. Finn
...be the only remedy. See: United States v. Michigan, 1903, 190 U.S. 379, 23 S.Ct. 742, 47 L.Ed. 1103; Northern Pacific Railway v. Townsend, 1903, 190 U.S. 267, 23 S.Ct. 671, 47 L.Ed. 1044; American Emigrant Co. v. County of Adams, 1870, 100 U.S. 61, 71, 25 L.Ed. It is conceded that defendant......
-
CHAPTER 5 RAILROAD RECORDS AND TITLES
...that the company ceased to use or retain the land for the purpose for which it was granted." Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Townsend, 190 U.S. 267 (1903); St. Joseph & D.C. Railroad Co. v. Baldwin, 103 U.S. 426 (1880). b. Public lands granted after 1871 and under Right of Way Act of 1875 c......
-
CHAPTER 14 SURFING THE TITLE WAVE -- TRICKY TITLE ISSUES FOR NEW TITLE ATTORNEYS
...and the Myth of Congress's "1871 Shift", 82 Colo. L. Rev. 85 (2011). [67] Id. at 94-98 (discussing Northern Pacific Railway v. Townsend, 190 U.S. 267 (1903); Great Northern Railway Co. v. United States, 315 U.S. 262 (1942)). [68] Great Northern Railway Co., 315 U.S. at 279. [69] U.S. v. Uni......
-
CHAPTER 6 TITLE TO OTHER COMMONLY ENCOUNTERED LANDS
...Union Pac. Ry. Co., 456 F. Supp. 154 (D.Kan. 1978). [10] St. Joseph v. Baldwin, 103 U.S. 426 (1886). [11] Northern Pac. R.R. v. Townsend, 190 U.S. 267 (1903). [12] United States v. Union Pac. R.R., 353 U.S. 112 (1957). [13] Ebner, "Mineral Ownership Beneath Railroad Rights-of-Way," 31 Rocky......
-
CHAPTER 14 MINERAL TITLE UNDER WATER BODIES, RAILROADS, STREETS, AND HIGHWAYS
...within limited fee rights-of-way = not available for entry and appropriation ("Townsend Doctrine") — Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Townsend, 190 U.S. 267 (1903) [Page 14-46] Primary lands • Also called "place lands" • Alternate sections granted under act • Once maps of definite location filed......