Hastings Co v. Whitney
Decision Date | 09 December 1889 |
Citation | 33 L.Ed. 363,10 S.Ct. 112,132 U.S. 357 |
Parties | HASTINGS & D. R. CO. v. WHITNEY et al. 1 |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Gordon E. Cole, for plaintiff in error.
This is an action, somewhat in the nature of a suit in equity, originally brought in the district court of Ramsey county, Minn., by the Hastings & Dakota Railroad Company, (a corporation organized under t e laws of that state,) against Julia D. and John Whitney, to recover a tract of about 80 acres of land situated in that county, for which the defendants have a United States patent. The material facts in the case are undisputed, and are substantially as follows: By the act of July 4, 1866, congress granted to the state of Minnesota, for the purpose of aiding in the construction of a railroad from Hastings, through the counties of Dakota, Scott, Carver, and McLeod, to such point on the western boundary of the state as the legislature of the state might determine, every alternate section of land, designated by odd numbers, to the amount of five alternate sections per mile on each side of the road. The act further provided that 'in case it shall appear that the United States have, when the lines or route of said roads are definitely located, sold any section, or part thereof, granted as aforesaid, or that the right of pre-emption or homestead settlement has attached to the same, or that the same has been reserved by the United States for any purpose whatever, then it shall be the duty of the secretary of the interior to cause to be selected, for the purposes aforesaid, from the public lands of the United States nearest to the tiers of sections above specified, so much land in alternate sections or parts of sections, designated by odd numbers, as shall be equal to such lands as the United States have sold, reserved, or otherwise appropriated, or to which the right of homestead settlement or pre-emption has attached as aforesaid, which lands, thus indicated by odd numbers and sections, by the direction of the secretary of the interior, shall be held by said state of Minnesota for the purposes and uses aforesaid.' 14 St. 87. On the 7th of March, 1867, the legislature of Minnesota accepted this grant, and transferred it over to the plaintiff. The railroad company complied with all the terms and conditions of the acts of congress, and of the legislature of the state of Minnesota, and on or about the 7th of March, 1867, definitely located its line of road by filing its map in the office of the commissioner of the general land-office. The land which is the subject of this controversy fell within what are known as the 10-mile limits of the aforesaid grant, when the line of road was definitely located. The case being brought on for trial on evidence produced by the respective parties, the court made and filed its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the essential parts of which are as follows: After making these findings of fact, and holding as a conclusion of law that the alleged entry of Turner was absolutely void, that the title to the land in dispute was, under the land grant to the state, vested in the plaintiff, and that the entry of Julia D. Whitney thereon was unauthorized and of no effect, the court entered a decree in favor of the plaintiff in error. On an appeal by the defendant to the supreme court of the state that decree was reversed, without any order for a new trial. Such reversal, under the laws of Minnesota, is, in effect, the final judgment of the highest court of that state in which a decision of the cause could be had, and the case has been brought here by a writ of error.
Section 1 of the act of March 21, 1864, (13 St. 35,) now section 2293 of the Revised Statutes, under which Turner's homestead entry was made, provides as follows: 'In case of any person desirous of availing himself of the benefits of this chapter, but who, by reason of actual service in the military or naval service of the United States, is unable to do the personal preliminary acts of the district land-office which the preceding sections require, and whose family, or some member thereof, is residing on the land which he desires to enter, and upon which a bona fide improvement and settlement have been made, such person may make the affidavit required by law before the officer commanding in the branch of the service in which the party is engaged, which affidavit shall be as binding in law, and with like penalties, as if taken before the register or receiver; and, upon such affidavit being filed with the register by the wife or other representative of the party, the same shall become effective from the date of such filing, provided the application and affidavit are accompanied by the fee and commissions as required by law.' The question presented for our consideration is whether, upon the facts found and admitted, the homestead entry of Turner upon the land in controversy excepted it from the operation of the land grant under which plaintiff in error claims title.
The doctrine first announced in Wilcox v. Jackson, 13 Pet. 498, that a tract lawfully appropriated to any purpose becomes thereafter severed from the mass of public lands, and that no subsequent law or proclamation will be construed to embrace it, or to operate upon it, although no exception be made of it, has been reaffirmed and applied by this court in such a great number and variety of cases that it may now be regarded as one of the fundamental principles underlying the land system of this country. In Witherspoon v. Duncan, 4 Wall. 210, this court decided, in accordance with the decision in Carroll v. Safford, 3 How. 441, that 'lands originally public cease to be public after they have been entered at the land-office, and a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Red Lion Broadcasting Co v. Federal Communications Commission United States v. Radio Television News Directors Association
...Revenue v. Sternberger's Estate, 348 U.S. 187, 199, 75 S.Ct. 229, 235, 99 L.Ed. 246 (1955); Hastings & D.R. Co. v. Whitney, 132 U.S. 357, 366, 10 S.Ct. 112, 115, 33 L.Ed. 363 (1889); United States v. Burlington & Missouri River R. Co., 98 U.S. 334, 341, 25 L.Ed. 198 (1879); United States v.......
-
United States v. Oregon & C.R. Co.
... ... in any capacity ... One of ... the earlier cases upon the subject is Frisbie v. Whitney, ... 9 Wall. 187, 19 L.Ed. 668. It arose in the following ... manner: Certain supposed grants by the Mexican government to ... one Vallejo, ... States, and to which a pre-emption or homestead claim may not ... have attached.' ... A like ... ruling was had in Hastings, etc., Railroad Co. v ... Whitney, 132 U.S. 357, 10 Sup.Ct. 112, 33 L.Ed. 363, ... where the exception was of lands to which 'the right of ... ...
-
West Coast Exploration Co. v. McKay
...Eldred v. Sexton, 19 Wall. 189, 86 U.S. 189, 22 L.Ed. 146 (1874). 8 See 43 U.S.C.A. § 162 et seq. 9 Hastings and Dakota R. R. Co. v. Whitney, 132 U.S. 357, 10 S.Ct. 112, 33 L. Ed. 363 (1889); Simmons v. Wagner, supra note 5. 10 See United States v. New Orleans P. Ry. Co., 248 U.S. 507, 39 S......
-
Oregon Short Line Railraod Co. v. Quigley
... ... public lands of the United States. ( Bardon v. Northern P ... R. R. Co., 145 U.S. 535, 12 S.Ct. 856, 36 L.Ed. 808; ... Hastings & D. R. R. Co. v. Whitney, 132 U.S ... 357-361, 10 S.Ct. 112, 33 L.Ed. 364; Leavenworth R. R ... Co. v. United States, 92 U.S. 733, 23 L.Ed ... ...