Anderson v. Carkins

Decision Date19 May 1890
Citation135 U.S. 483,10 S.Ct. 905,34 L.Ed. 272
PartiesANDERSON et al. v. CARKINS
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

J. M. Woolworth and John A. Casto, for plaintiffs in error.

A. H. Bowen, for defendant in error.

BREWER, J.

On December 16, 1876, the parties hereto entered into the following entered into this 16th day of December, by and between Joseph Anderson and Hannah Anderson, his wife, of the county of Adams and the state of Nebraska, parties of the first part, and Levi Carkins, of Adams county, Nebraska, party of the second part, witnesseth: That the said parties of the first part have this day sold, for and in consideration of the sum of one hundred o llars to them in hand paid by the said Levi Carkins, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, the following real estate, to- wit: The south one-half of south-east quarter of section ten, (10,) in town eight, (8,) range ten (10) west, in Adams county, Nebraska. And the parties of the first part further agree with the party of the second part that they will make and execute to him, on or before the 1st day of May, 1881, a good and sufficient warranty deed of said premises, clear of all incumbrance, and for the faithful performance of this contract they hereby bind themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns. In witness whereof they have hereunto set their hands and seals this 16th day of December, 1876. [Signed] JOSEPH ANDERSON, HANNAH M. ANDERSON, parties of the first part. LEVI CARKINS, party of the second part. In presence of L. P. HAWLEY.' In October, 1885, the defendant in error commenced his action in the district court of Adams county, Neb., for a specific performance of this contract. The plaintiffs in error answered, pleading distinctly that the contract was against public policy and void, for the reason that at the time of its execution the land belonged to the general government; that it was made in contemplation of Joseph Anderson's taking the land as a homestead; that on the 7th day of March, 1877, he did enter the land as a homestead; and that he continued to reside upon and cultivate it until the 31st day of March, 1884, at which time he made final proof under the homestead law, and thus only obtained title. The case, after trial in the district court, passed to the supreme court of the state, by which a final decree was entered for a specific performance. To reverse such decree this proceeding in error has been brought. Two questions are presented,—one of inrisdiction, the other of error.

First, with respect to jurisdiction, it will be observed that the contract is prima facie good. The land is described, the consideration stated and its receipt acknowledged, a sale affirmed, an agreement to convey recited, and the time for the conveyance specifically named. To a bill for the specific performance of this contract the defendants answered that the contract was void under the homestead laws of the United States. Notwithstanding this defense so expressly stated a decree for specific performance was entered against them. Obviously, this could not be so entered without adjudging such defense insufficient, and denying to them the protection claimed under the homestead laws. It is true that the supreme court of Nebraska in its opinion relied principally on two sections of the statutes of Nebraska; but it also, and as plainly, ruled that the defense that the contract was against public policy and void was not sustainable, and that the homestead laws carry with them no protection against such a contract. If, under their provisions, such a contract is void, then obviously no state statute can vitalize the contract, or deprive a party thereto of the protection afforded by the federal statutes. Inasmuch, therefore, as no decree could pass against the defendants without denying the protection asserted by them under the homestead laws, and as the supreme court of Nebraska expressly declared that this invalidity under the homestead laws was not sustainable, it follows that the case is one in which a right was specifically set up and claimed under the statutes of the United States, and the decision and judgment of the state court were against that right. Hence the jurisdiction of this court cannot be doubted. Murdock v. Memphis, 20 Wall. 590. It is immaterial that the state court considered the case to be within the provisions of certain state statutes. The grasp of the federal statute must first be released. The construction and scope of that are federal questions, in respect to which the party who claims under such statute, and whose claim is denied, has a right to invoke the judgment of this court.

Passing now to the qe stion of error, it appears that, prior to the date of the contract, Carkins had been in possession of the whole quarter section; that he had held it as a timber claim from 1873 to the time of the contract; that he had broken and cultivated 40 acres, and planted 20 acres of timber; that the improvements he had thus made were of the value of $1,000; that Anderson was unable to pay cash for these improvements, and so the arrangement was made by which Carkins relinquished his possession to Anderson, and the latter was to enter into possession, to acquire title under the homestead act, and to convey one-half the land in payment for these improvements. The consideration was ample, and the only question is as to the validity of the contract to convey. The theory of the homestead law is that the homestead shall be for the exclusive benefit of the homesteader. Section 2290 of the Revised Statutes provides that a person applying for the entry of a homestead claim shall make affidavit that, among other things, 'such application is made for his exclusive use and benefit, and that his entry is made for the purpose of actual settlement and cultivation, and not, either directly or indirectly, for the use or benefit of any other person.' And section 2291, which prescribes the time and manner of final proof, requires that the applicant make 'affidavit that no part of such land has been alienated, except as provided in section 2288,' which section provides for alienation for 'church, cemetery, or school purposes, or for the right of way of railroads.' The law contemplates five years' continuous occupation by the homesteader, with no alienation except for the named purposes. It is true that the sections contain no express prohibition of alienation, and no forfeiture in case of alienation; yet, under them the homestead right cannot be perfected in case of alienation, or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
110 cases
  • State Bank of Wheatland v. Bagley Bros.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 10 Mayo 1932
    ...Shoreman v. Eakin, (Ark.) 1 S.W. 559; Clark v. Bayley, 5 Ore. 343, 352; Armstrong v. Henderson, (Ida.) 102 P. 361, 364; Anderson v. Carkins, 34 L.Ed. 272, 135 U.S. 483; Kennedy v. Lonabaugh, 19 Wyo. 352, 359; Groome's Estate, (Cal.) 29 P. 487. There is no evidence of record that these homes......
  • BERES v. UNITED States
    • United States
    • Court of Federal Claims
    • 7 Abril 2011
    ...prior to 1873, homesteaders were prohibited from alienating any part of their claim prior to receiving a patent. See Anderson v. Carkins, 135 U.S. 483, 489 (1890) ("[T]he policy of the act of Congress granting homesteads on the public lands, as disclosed by its requirement of affidavit and ......
  • Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald & Mallory Construction Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • 26 Junio 1894
    ...upon the facts, it is fairly within the principle of Wardell v. Railroad Company, 103 U.S. 651, 26 L.Ed. 509; Anderson v. Carkins, 135 U.S. 483, 34 L.Ed. 272, 10 S.Ct. 905; Gould v. Kendall, [41 Neb. 493] 15 Neb. 549, 19 N.W. 483, and many other cases of a similar nature. In both Wardell v.......
  • Minidoka & Southwestern Railroad Company v. Weymouth
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • 28 Enero 1911
    ......Church, 193 U.S. 510, 24 S.Ct. 512,. 48 L.Ed. 769, that the homestead is a gift from the. government to the homesteader. (See, also, Anderson v. Carkins, 135 U.S. 483, 10 S.Ct. 905, 34 L.Ed. 272.). . . Some. stress is laid upon the fact that in the Reclamation Act it. is ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT