Cofield v. Clelland

Decision Date01 December 1872
Citation21 L.Ed. 339,16 Wall. 331,83 U.S. 331
PartiesCOFIELD v. McCLELLAND
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

APPEAL from the Supreme Court for the Territory of Colorado; the case being thus:

The city of Denver, which is in the couty of Arapahoe, Colorado Territory, was originally laid out by a company or association of persons, on the public domain of the United States, before the same had been surveyed and became subject to entry. And the company was aided by the privileges of pre-emption, at the minimum price, being secured to settlers and occupants of lots by the general enactment of May 23d, 1844,1 'for the relief of the citizens of the towns upon the lands of the United States under certain circumstances,' and by a special enactment 'for the relief of the citizens of Denver,' of the 28th of May, 1864,2 whereby the probate judge of the county was constituted a trustee to enter the land selected for the site of the town, when the same became subject to entry, and to pass the legal title to the settlers and occupants of lots, under rules and regulations prescribed by the legislative authority of the Territory of Colorado.

These acts being in force, the probate judge of Arapahoe County having, on the 6th of May, 1865, entered the town site under the acts referred to, on the 10th of May, 1865, and in accordance with the directions of a Territorial act of Colorado, of March 11th, 1864, advertised for four weeks thereafter in a weekly newspaper published at Denver (though whether also by posting notices in three public places in the town, which a Territorial act of Colorado required, did not appear, the judge himself being dead), the fact that he had made the said entry, and that all claimants of lots in the town should within ninety days present their claims to him.

Mrs. Louisa McClelland, then, as the evidence in the case went strongly to show, in occupation of lot No. 6, block 69, in Denver, and who had erected valuable improvements on it, and was then paying taxes upon it—all without apparent knowledge of any counter claim—accordingly presented her claim for the said lot, and there being no counter claim made to it by any one, the probate judge, on the 11th of August, 1865, conveyed the said lot to her. She being thus in possession, one Cofield, in April, 1869, filed a bill against her to compel a conveyance to him. The bill alleged an equitable title to the lot in the complainant by the occupation and possession; a prior settlement, to wit, by a certain Preston, in 1859, a conveyance by Preston to one Hall, and after several intermediate conveyances, by which the lot came to one Bates, a conveyance by Bates to the complainant in 1869.3

The court below having dismissed the bill, the complainant took this appeal.

Mr. J. M. Woolworth, for the appellant; Messrs. Bartley and Casey, contra.

Mr. Justice HUNT delivered the opinion of the court.

The territory upon which stands the city of Denver, Colorado, was entered upon, occupied, and possessed by numerous persons before the same was surveyed and had become subject to public entry. Occurrences like the one which gives rise to this bill seem to have been common, and the rights of the parties were protected and regulated by an act of Congress passed May 23d, 1844. A special act was also passed by Congress, on the 28th of May, 1864, 'for the relief of the citizens of Denver.' It is by the principles prescribed in these several statutes that the rights of the parties in this suit are to be determined.

The first of the acts to which reference has been made4 authorizes the probate judge to enter at the proper land office the land settled and occupied by such occupants of a town or city. It is also enacted that such entry by him shall be 'in trust for the several use and benefit of the occupants thereof according to their respective interests, the execution of which trust as to the disposal of the lots in such town, and the proceeds of the sale thereof, to be conducted under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the legislative authority of the State or Territory in which the same is situated.'

The act 'for the relief of the citizens of Denver, in the Territory of Colorado,'5 authorizes 'the probate judge of Arapahoe County to enter at the minimum price, in trust for the several use and benefit of the rightful occupants of said land, and the bon a fide owners of the improvements thereon, according to their respective interests, the following legal subdivisions of land,' describing certain specific divisions, of which the lot in question is a portion.

The act of the Territorial legislature of Colorado, passed March 11th, 1864, contained numerous provisions regulating the rights of settlers and the manner in which their rights shall be ascertained. The second section enacts that the title from the probate judge shall be in trust for and conveyed...

To continue reading

Request your trial
39 cases
  • Scully v. Squier
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • May 18, 1907
    ... ... S.Ct. 350; Custner v. Gunther, 6 Minn. 119 (Gil ... 63); Leech v. Rauch, 3 Minn. 448 (Gil. 332); ... Cook v. Rice, 2 Colo. 131; Cofield v. McClelland, 16 ... Wall. 331, 21 L.Ed. 339.) ... The ... official survey and platting of an existing street whereby ... the lines ... ...
  • Amy v. Amy
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • December 21, 1895
    ... ... bar--an absolute bar--to the recovery of the same, however ... strong might be the equitable claim to the land so lost.' ... Cofield v. McClelland , 16 Wall. 331, 21 ... L.Ed. 339. * * * In any event, the legislature did not see ... fit to exempt trustees from the benefit of ... ...
  • Edward Hines Yellow Pine Trustees v. State ex rel. Moore
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • October 1, 1923
    ... ... N.W. 455, 10 L. R. A. 268; Richards v. W. M. Ritter ... Lumber Co., 158 N.C. 54, 73 S.E. 485, 74 S.E. 1016, Ann ... Cas. 1913 D 313; Cofield v. McClelland, 16 Wall ... 331, 21 U.S. (L. Ed.) 339; Richards v. W. M. Ritter ... Lumber Company, 158 N.C. 54, 73 S.E. 1016, Ann. Cas ... ...
  • Bowling v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • May 20, 1924
    ... ... 206, 45 L.Ed. 252 ... The ... presumption is that the officials did their duty. 22 C.J. 130 ... (section 69); 32 Cyc. 1017; Cofield v. McClelland, ... 16 Wall. 331, 21 L.Ed. 339; U.S. v. Kinkead (D.C.) ... 248 F. 141; Harkrader v. Carroll (D.C.) 76 F. 474; ... U.S. v. Erickson ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Chapter 1 - § 1.5 • TOWNSITES
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association Colorado Real Property Law (CBA) Chapter 1 Origin of Colorado Titles
    • Invalid date
    ...Pascoe v. Green, 32 P. 824 (Colo. 1893).[255] City of Pueblo v. Budd, 36 P. 599 (Colo. 1894), distinguishing Cofield v. McClelland, 83 U.S. 331 (1872) on the ground that Cofield applied only to one out of possession who challenges the right of one in possession who has complied with the Tow......

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