Douglas Bailey v. Arthur Sanders
| Decision Date | 12 May 1913 |
| Docket Number | No. 271,271 |
| Citation | 57 L.Ed. 985,33 S.Ct. 602,228 U.S. 603 |
| Parties | DOUGLAS W. BAILEY, Appt., v. ARTHUR SANDERS |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Douglas W. Bailey, in propria persona, and Mr. Henry H. Gilfrey for appellant.
No brief was filed for appellee.
This is a suit to determine which of two claims to a tract of land in the state of Idaho is the better one. The tract is within the ceded portion of the Nez Perce Indian Reservation, which was brought within the operation of the homestead law by the act of August 15, 1894 (28 Stat. at L. 286, 332, chap. 290). Bailey, the plaintiff, claims as the grantee once removed of William W. Hately, who made a preliminary entry of the tract in 1899, commuted the entry in 1901, and received the usual receipt and certificate. Sanders, the defendant, claims under an entry subsequently made and upon which he has obtained a patent. The real controversy is over the effect to be given to certain contest proceedings in the Land Department which resulted in the cancelation of Hately's entry and in the allowance of that of the defendant. In his bill of complaint the plaintiff sets forth all or the major part of the proceedings and evidence in the contest and calls in question the cancelation of Hately's entry. A demurrer to the bill was sustained by the circuit court and the bill was dismissed. The decree was affirmed by the circuit court of appeals (101 C. C. A. 293, 177 Fed. 667), and the plaintiff brings the case here.
We shall refer briefly to such parts only of the case made by the bill and the exhibits as have a direct bearing on the questions requiring decision by us.
As soon as Hately's entry was commuted, he conveyed the land to one Beach, as the result of negotiations with Bailey, the plaintiff, who claimed to be acting for Beach. The contest against the entry originated in a charge preferred by Sanders to the effect that a fraud had been perpetrated in obtaining the conveyance to Beach, and that Bailey had for a long time been resorting to irregular methods to secure the land. The charge was somewhat vaguely stated, and pointed more to a fraud on Hately than to one on the United States, but the Commissioner of the General Land Office regarded it as requiring investigation, and ordered a hearing in the local office, of which Hately, Beach, and Sanders were to be notified, and in which each was to be heard, 'in order that all the facts in the case might be brought out.' The hearing was had, Hately and Sanders appearing in person and Beach being represented by Bailey. Upon the evidence adduced the local officers found, among other things, that two or three months before Hately made his commutation proof, an agreement was made between him and Bailey, whereby the latter was to pay the expense of the commutation and Hately was to convey the land to Bailey for an additional consideration of $600 when the commutation was effected, and that the conveyance to Beach was made at Bailey's instance, in pursuance of the agreement. By successive appeals the contest was carried before the Commissioner of the General Land Office and the Secretary of the Interior, with the result that the finding of the local officers was sustained and the entry canceled because of the agreement to convey. The conveyance from Beach to Bailey was made after the contest was heard by the local officers, and while it was pending on appeal before the General Land Office.
1. It is insisted that no evidence was adduced in the contest tending to show the making of such an agreement as was described in the finding of the Land Department, and therefore that the cancelation of the entry was wholly arbitrary and unauthorized. The evidence is set forth in one of the exhibits to the bill, and it there appears that Hately gave the following testimony:
Q. When did you first come to know Mr. Bailey, or where did you first meet him?
A. Some time in January, 1901, Woodland, Idaho [the entry was commuted in March following].
Q. What, if any, conversation did he have with you on that occasion concerning the land in controversy?
A. He didn't say much about it. . . .
Q. What did Mr. Bailey say to you about proving up on your land, assisting you to prove up, if anything, at that time?
A. He said he had some folks that wanted a piece of land in the timber. Well, he wanted a deed to the place, and I told him if I had to make the deed what it would take to get the land.
Q. How much did you tell him you would take?
A. I told him it would take $600 besides the expense.
Q. Were you living upon your land at that time?
A. Yes.
Q. Was there any special agreement made by you and Mr. Bailey at your house or place?
A. He drawed up some kind of an agreement, but I don't know what it was.
Q. Did he read it to you and inform you of the purport of the paper?
A. Yes.
Q. Did Mr. Bailey subsequently have you appear before some officer in order to consummate your final proof of the land in question?
A. He did.
Q. When did Mr. Bailey have you execute this deed which has been offered in this case, marked Exhibit 'A' [deed to Beach], alleged to have been signed by yourself and wife?
A. Some time in March, 1901.
There was also testimony to the effect that shortly before the hearing, Beach disclaimed any personal interest in the land; and in the decision of the local officers, which is an exhibit to the bill, it is stated that the commutation price was paid by Bailey, and that, although present at the hearing, he refused to be sworn. In these circumstances we think it cannot be said that the finding of the Land Department respecting the agreement to convey was arbitrary or without evidence to support it.
2. Another objection urged against the action of the Land Department is that the charge upon which the hearing was ordered did not clearly or certainly assail Hately's entry on the ground that, before perfecting it,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Southern Pac. R. Co. v. Ambler Grain & Milling Co.
...of the government in its action to recover for timber wrongfully cut by the homesteader. The Supreme Court in Bailey v. Sanders, 228 U. S. 603, 33 S. Ct. 602, 57 L. Ed. 985, holds that a purchase of the land by a homesteader under section 2301 is a consummation of the homestead entry, and c......
-
Mcdonald v. Lambert
...in a homestead entry before the entryman is entitled to a patent is forbidden by United States law and is void. Bailey v. Sanders, 228 U.S. 603, 33 S.Ct. 602, 57 L.Ed. 985; Buchser v. Buchser, 231 U.S. 157, 34 S.Ct. 46, 58 L.Ed. 166; Worthington v. Tipton et al., 24 N.M. 89, 172 P. 1048, 10......
-
Short v. Praisewater
... ... 905, 34 L.Ed. 272; Mellison v. Allen, 30 Kan. 382, 2 ... P. 97; Bailey v. Sanders, 228 U.S. 603, 33 S.Ct ... 602, 57 L.Ed. 985; Cascade Public ... ...
-
Everett v. Wallin
... ... Hafemann v. Gross, 199 U.S. 342, 26 S.Ct. 80, 50 ... L.Ed. 220; Bailey v. Sanders, 228 U.S. 603, 33 S.Ct ... 602, 57 L.Ed. 985; St. Peter Co ... ...