Barbee Mill Co. v. State
| Decision Date | 29 September 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 32302,32302 |
| Citation | 43 Wn.2d 353,261 P.2d 418 |
| Parties | BARBEE MILL CO., Inc. v. STATE. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
W. B. Chandler, Jerome Williams, Spokane, for appellant.
Don Eastvold, Bernard G. Lonctot, E. P. Donnelly, Olympia, for respondent.
Our Enabling Act granted ninety thousand acres of land to the state of Washington for the support of agricultural colleges. The land was to be selected with the approval of the secretary of the interior in such a manner as the legislature would provide. The legislature implemented the Enabling Act by appropriate legislation, Laws of 1895, chapter 178, § 11, p. 531, Laws of 1897, chapter 89, § 10, p. 234 (Rem.Rev.Stat., § 7840), under the terms of which 'Selection Lists' of land descriptions were to be prepared in triplicate. One copy was to be transmitted to the secretary of the interior, one to the local Federal land office, and one was to be filed in the office of the commissioner of public lands of the state of Washington.
The lands here in question were among those selected and entered on prepared sheets which were designated as 'Selection List No. 3,' which was made out in triplicate originals and forwarded to the North Yakima land office for approval.
On June 15, 1899, one original copy of 'Selection List No. 3,' exhibit A, was returned to the commissioner of public lands, bearing the certificate of the registrar and receiver of the North Yakima land office. It was filed in the records of the commissioner of public lands, and was found there at time of trial.
The certificate on exhibit A of the state's selection by the North Yakima land office, is as follows:
'We hereby certify that we have carefully examined the foregoing list of lands selected by the State of Washington under the provisions of the 16th Section of the Act of Congress approved February 22, 1889, in satisfaction of the grant to the State of Washington for Agriculture College and we have tested the accuracy of said list by the plats and records of this office, and that we find the same to be correct; and we further certify that the filing of said list is allowed and approved and that the whole of said lands are surveyed public lands of the United States, no part of same being returned as mineral lands, nor is there any homestead, preemption or other valid claim to any portion of said lands on file or record in this office. * * *'
The other two originals of exhibit A, the state's 'Selection List No. 3,' are lost. One should be in the North Yakima land office records, and one should be in the general land office records in Washington, D. C. That the North Yakima land office received its copy and lost it abundantly appears from its certificate quoted above. That the general land office had a copy appears in a copy of 'Clear List No. 11' issued by the general land office confirming the title of the state of Washington in the lands selected under exhibit A, which is recorded and to be found in the office of the commissioner of public lands.
Notwithstanding the Federal conveyance to the state of Washington of the lands in question by the method approved by law, the Federal government, due, no doubt, to its having lost both original copies of 'Selection List No. 3' and one copy of 'Clear List No. 11,' issued a patent to one William H. Rader on March 26, 1904. The land has always been unoccupied, but taxes were paid upon it until 1951.
This is an action by the plaintiff, Rader's successor in interest, to try title to the land. From a judgment for the state, the plaintiff appeals.
The appellant contends that the state did not establish its title because it failed to prove that the triplicate originals of 'Selection List No. 3' were identical, two of them having been lost. We do not agree. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, public officers are presumed to have performed their duties regularly and legally in compliance with controlling statutory provisions. Blade v. Town of LaConner, 167 Wash. 403, 9 P.2d 381; Camp v. Peterson, 191 Wash. 634, 71 P.2d 1074; 20 Am.Jur. 174, § 170; and 20 Am.Jur. 180, § 173. This rule supports the presumption that the triplicate originals were identical. We are satisfied that the state of Washington has the legal title to the property in question.
This presents a situation in which the Federal government conveyed the land in question to the state of Washington, and subsequently wrongfully purported to convey the same land to the appellant's predecessor.
The appellant brought this action against the state, not the Federal government. It contends that the state had a duty to see to it that the Federal agents gave notice to the public of the state's title by a proper recording in its records. It contends that the state's failure to do so makes the Federal agents' negligence attributable to the state, with the result that appellant's title is superior to that of the state.
Appellant relies upon Ritchie v. Griffiths, 1 Wash. 429, 25 P. 341, 12 L.R.A. 384. That case involved recording statutes. At the time of the conveyance in question, appellant concedes that there was no recording statute in force which required the keeping of such tract or plat books in the Federal land office as would give notice to the public of such a conveyance.
The appellant contends, however, that, even in the absence of a recording statute, it was the custom and practice of the United States land department to keep selections of lands, such as were here made by the state...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Borchert, Application of
...affects his opinion or judgment. Bias or prejudice on the part of an elected judicial officer is never presumed. Barbee Mill Co. v. State, 1953, 43 Wash.2d 353, 261 P.2d 418. When it is asserted to exist, the legislature has provided an accused person an absolute right to a change of venue ......
-
O'Neill v. State Highway Dept.
...L.Ed.2d 854 (1966); Board of Park Commissioners v. Taylor, 133 Iowa 453, 108 N.W. 927, 931 (Sup.Ct.1906); Barbee Mill Co., Inc. v. State, 43 Wash.2d 353, 261 P.2d 418 (Sup.Ct.1953). So also we cannot accept the proposition advanced by Amicus, Reinauer Land Company, that we indulge in a pres......
-
State v. Bertrand
...to have performed their duty regularly and legally. Smith v. Hollenbeck, 48 Wash.2d 461, 294 P.2d 921 (1956); Barbee Mill Co. v. State, 43 Wash.2d 353, 261 P.2d 418 (1953); Randies v. Washington State Liquor Control Board, 33 Wash.2d 688, 206 P.2d 1209, 9 A.L.R.2d 531 (1949). This presumpti......
-
In re Brown
...statutes are not thought to operate retroactively. Harris v. Williford, 165 S.W.2d 582, 584 (Tenn.1942); Barbee Mill Co. v. State, 43 Wash.2d 353, 261 P.2d 418, 421 (1953); see 26 C.J.S. Deeds § 73 ...
-
Table of Cases
...208, 202 P.3d 983 (2009): 10.2(1) Bank of America, N.A. v. Owens, 173 Wn.2d 40, 266 P.3d 211 (2011): 10.3(1) Barbee Mill Co. v. State, 43 Wn.2d 353, 261 P.2d 418 (1953): 6.4(1), 6.5(1) Barnes v. Spurch, 121 Wash. 338, 209 P. 513 (1922): 2.4 Bartlett v. Bartlett, 183 Wash. 278, 48 P.2d 560 (......
-
Table of Cases
...575, 445 P.2d 648 (1968): 18.5(1), 18.5(2) Baer v. Moran Bros. Co., 2 Wash. 608, 27 P. 470 (1891): 18.1, 18.4(1) Barbee Mill Co. v. State, 43 Wn.2d 353, 261 P.2d 418 (1953): 20.4(2) Barrie v. Kitsap Cnty., 93 Wn.2d 843, 613 P.2d 1148 (1980): 2.2(3), 2.5(2), 7.3(1)(a) Barrie v. Kitsap Cnty. ......
-
§ 20.4 - Patents
...granted or appropriated are absolutely void. Proctor, 15 F.2d at 975. The Washington Supreme Court, in Barbee Mill Co. v. State, 43 Wn.2d 353, 355-56, 261 P.2d 418 (1953), held that the mere inclusion of land on a selection list of lands to be granted to the state, without issuance of a pat......
-
§ 6.4 - Mineral Severance by Grant or Reservation
...was the approval of a list of lands selected, in lieu of any formal document executed by the federal government. Barbee Mill Co. v. State, 43 Wn.2d 353, 261 P.2d 418 (1953). Once selected, the lands cannot be promised to another, but the patent must be issued. Patents still are issued norma......