Dockendorf v. Bassett

• Decision Date: 21 February 1910
• Docket Number: 3,019.
• Citation: 176 F. 917
• Parties: DOCKENDORF v. BASSETT et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

176 F. 917

DOCKENDORF v. BASSETT et al.

No. 3,019.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

February 21, 1910

Edwin J. Stason (Madison B. Davis, on the brief), for appellant.

W. D Boies (A. C. Parker, on the brief), for appellees.

Before SANBORN, Circuit Judge, and RINER and WM. H. MUNGER, District judges.

WM. H MUNGER, District Judge.

This suit was commenced on the 30th day of July, 1904, by complainant against defendants, to have a certain patent to the southwest quarter of section 5, township 96, range 42 west, in the county of O'Brien, and state of Iowa, issued by the United States to the defendants, declared illegal and void and canceled and set aside.

The facts in this case are substantially the same as in the case of Roscoe Lyle v. George M. Patterson et al. (just decided) 176 F. 909. The land herein, as in that case, was within the place limits of the grant to the Sioux City & St. Paul Railroad Company. The material difference in the facts between the two cases is that in this case, on the 12th day of November, 1887, one Rachel B. Calvert, then a citizen of the United States, purchased by contract from the Sioux City & St. Paul Railroad Company the land in question, and thereafter, on November 30, 1888, she duly sold and assigned in writing her said contract of purchase to the defendants.

Immediately after her purchase, Rachel B. Calvert entered into possession of said land, and since the date of the purchase by defendants they have been in the absolute, open, notorious and undisputed possession of the premises, except that complainant, on the 23d day of October, 1895, undertook to take possession of said land, entered thereon, and erected a small shanty thereon, but did not move his family thereto except that his wife was there three or four days-- they had no children. Defendants did not permit the complainant to remain on said premises and instituted an action of forcible entry and detainer against complainant in a justice court, claiming that complainant had wrongfully, fraudulently, and stealthily entered upon the prior, actual possession of defendants, and upon the trial of said action such justice court rendered judgment, finding complainant guilty of forcible entry and detention of said premises, that he entered thereon by stealth, force, and fraud, and a writ of removal was issued under such judgment duly entered, and complainant was duly ousted from said premises....