Adams v. Church

• Decision Date: 21 March 1904
• Docket Number: No. 169,169
• Citation: 193 U.S. 510,24 S.Ct. 512,48 L.Ed. 769
• Parties: I. H. ADAMS, Plff. in Err. , v. J. M. CHURCH, Administrator of R. M. Steel, Deceased
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

193 U.S. 510

24 S.Ct. 512

48 L.Ed. 769

I. H. ADAMS, Plff. in Err.,

v J. M. CHURCH, Administrator of R. M. Steel, Deceased.

No. 169.

Argued March 3, 1904.

Decided March 21, 1904.

This is an appeal from a decree of the circuit court of Malheur county, state of Oregon, entered by direction of the supreme court of Oregon.

The action originated in a suit by Steel against Adams to settle the affairs of a copartnership theretofore carried on by the parties, and, so far as a Federal question is concerned, involves the right of the plaintiff below to have conveyed to him an interest in a certain tract of land, acquired by Adams under the timber culture act, before the formation of the partnership. 20 Stat. at L. 113, chap. 190. The defendant denies that this tract of land was included in the partnership property. Upon appeal to the supreme court of Oregon, upon whose direction the decree was entered, it was found that at the time of the formation of the partnership Adams was the owner of a timber culture claim covering the land in controversy, and the contention of the plaintiff that it was agreed and understood at the time of forming the partnership that such claim should be conveyed to and become a part of the assets of the firm as soon as Adams should acquire title from the government was sustained.

The Federal question made is that such agreement is void as against the statutes and policy of the United States.

Messrs.R. J. Slater and Will R. King for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. Alonzo H. Stewart and Joseph Simon for defendant in error.

Statement by Mr. Justice Day:

Mr. Justice Day, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court:

The finding of facts made in the supreme court of Oregon is binding upon this court and will be the basis of decision here. Egan v. Hart, 165 U. S. 188, 41 L. ed. 680, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 300; Dower v. Richards, 151 U. S. 658, 38 L. ed. 305, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 452.

It appears that Adams made the entry under the timber culture act before the partnership agreement was entered into, and there is nothing in the record to show that, in taking the preliminary oath required by the statute, he acted otherwise than in good faith, and stated the truth as to the situation and his purpose in making the entry. As recited in the title, the purpose of the act is to encourage the growth of timber on the Western prairies, and it is intended to induce settlers to plant and cultivate trees with a view to receiving a patent of the lands thus improved. Section 2 of the act (20 Stat. at L. 113, chap. 190) requires the person applying for the benefit of the law to make affidavit that he is the head of a family (or over twenty-one years of age) and a citizen of the United States, or has declared his intention to become such; that the land specified is devoid of timber; that the entry is made for the cultivation of timber for the exclusive use and benefit of the applicant; that the application is made in good faith, and not for the purpose of speculation, or directly or indirectly for the use or benefit of any other person or persons whomsoever; that affiant intends to hold and cultivate the land and to comply with the provisions of the act, and has not made other entry under the law. Before a final certificate can be given or patent issue, eight years must elapse from the date of entry, and if, at the expiration of that time, or within five years thereafter, the person making the entry, or, in event of death, his heir or legal representative, shall prove by two credible witnesses that he, she, or they have planted, and for not less than eight years have cultivated and protected, the required quantity and character of trees; that not less than twenty-seven hundred trees were planted on each acre, and that at the time of making such proof there shall be then growing six hundred and seventy-five living and thrifty trees on each acre, a patent shall issue for the land.

It is the contention of the plaintiff in error that these provisions demonstrate the policy of the law to grant the lands in question to the person filing the entry, his heirs and legal representatives, and none other; and that to make the sale of an interest in the lands to another as a partner, as is found to have been done in this case, is void as against public policy. It is pointed out that the final affidavit, required by the rules and regulations of the General Land Office, made under authority of § 5 of the act, is to be in the same terms as the preliminary one, and requires the...