Humbird v. Avery
| Decision Date | 29 August 1901 |
| Citation | 110 F. 465 |
| Parties | HUMBIRD et al. v. AVERY et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Billson Congdon & Dickinson and H. Oldenburg, for complainants.
H. H Hoyt, Jaques & Hudson, Towne & Harris, M. H. Stanford, John G. Williams, and S. H. Moer, for defendants.
The complainants above named, claiming the equitable title and ownership of very numerous tracts or parcels of land in the state of Minnesota lying in odd-numbered sections north of the line of the Northern Pacific Railroad, and east of the meridian of Duluth, and within the limits of the indemnity belts of land granted by congress in aid of the construction of said railroad, under conveyances or contracts of sale from the Northern Pacific Railway Company, which is the successor of the Northern Pacific Railroad Company, and entitled to all rights of said last-named company in said lands, filed this bill against the numerous defendants named therein, who are respectively settlers upon parcels of said lands, or purchasers of parcels thereof from the United States, or grantees of such purchasers, to have adjudicated and established the right and title of complainants to said lands, and to have the claims of defendants thereto adjudged invalid, and disposed of as clouds upon the right and title of complainants; and for other relief specifically asked or generally prayed for. The answers of the answering defendants respectively assert their rights to lands as lawful settlers thereon under the laws of the United States, or under purchases from the United States. The controversy in regard to the title to these lands arose from conflicting action and rulings of the land department of the United States respecting the point of location on Lake Superior of the eastern terminus of the Northern Pacific Railroad, and as to the right of the Northern Pacific Railroad Company to receive any lands, under its land grant, in respect to that portion of its railroad which was built and operated between Thomson Junction, in the state of Minnesota, and Ashland, in the state of Wisconsin. The map of definite location of that portion of said railroad was transmitted to the secretary of the interior July 3, 1882, and was accepted, and the land grant adjusted to the line shown thereon, and the lands appertaining to that portion of the railroad withdrawn from sale or entry by order of the secretary. On August 28, 1884 the board of directors of the Northern Pacific Railroad Company, by resolution, fixed and located the eastern terminus of said railroad at Ashland, and transmitted a copy of such resolution to the land department December 3, 1884, and that was accepted by the land department as establishing such eastern terminus. That portion of the railroad was constructed, and was accepted by commissioners appointed by the president; and said Northern Pacific Railroad Company, pursuant to directions of the secretary of the interior, made and filed its lists of selections of lands in said indemnity belts in lieu of lands lost to it in its place limits, including all the lands in controversy in this suit; which lists of selected lands were accepted and approved by said land department, and some of the same were afterwards patented to said Northern Pacific Railroad Company, but not including any which are embraced in this suit. But thereafter, on August 27, 1896, the secretary of the interior ruled and decided that the eastern terminus of said railroad was at the city of Duluth, and that its land grant did not extend east of the meridian of that city; and thereupon, by his order, said lists of selections were canceled, and the land so selected opened for sale and entry as unappropriated public land; and thereafter, and conformably with such ruling of the secretary of the interior, the entries and purchases were made under which the present defendants now claim.
Most of the foregoing matters will be found stated more at length in the reports of the cases of U.S. v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 37 C.C.A. 290, 95 F. 864; U.S. v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 177 U.S. 435, 20 Sup.Ct. 706, 44 L.Ed. 836; and Doherty v. Railroad Co., 177 U.S. 421, 20 Sup.Ct. 677, 44 L.Ed. 830. These decisions finally adjudged that the eastern terminus of said railroad was at Ashland; and on the filing, on April 16, 1900, of the supreme court decisions just referred to, the secretary of the interior revoked the order canceling said lists of selections, and reinstated the said lists. Prior to July 1, 1898, the supreme court of the state Of wisconsin, in the Doherty Case, above cited, then pending before it, had adjudged and decided that the eastern terminus of said railroad was established at Ashland; and this court, in the other above-cited case, then pending before it, had rendered judgment to the same effect; and on that date, by provisions contained in 30 Stat. 620, c. 546, congress enacted:
'That where, prior to January first, eighteen hundred and ninety eight, the whole or any part of an odd numbered section in either the granted or the indemnity limits of the land grant to the Northern Pacific Railroad Company, to which the right of the grantee or its lawful successor is claimed to have attached by definite location or selection, has been purchased directly from the United States or settled upon or claimed in good faith by any qualified settler under color of title or claim of right under any law of the United States or any ruling of the interior department, and when purchaser, settler or claimant refuses to transfer his entry as herein provided, the railroad grantee or its successor in interest, upon a proper relinquishment thereof, shall be entitled to select in lieu of the land relinquished an equal quantity of public lands, surveyed or unsurveyed, not mineral or reserved, and not valuable for stone, iron or coal, and free from valid adverse claim or not occupied by settlers at the time of such selection, situated within any state or territory into which such railroad grant extends, and patents shall issue for the land so selected as though it had been originally granted,' etc.
This act further provided that the secretary of the interior should ascertain, prepare, and deliver to the railroad grantee or its successor in interest lists of the tracts of land so purchased or settled upon and now claimed by the purchasers or occupants, their heirs or assigns; and that the right, title, and interest of the railroad grantee so relinquished should revert to the United States, and the lands be treated as if the grant had never included them. The act further provided that the railroad grantee, or its successors in interest, should accept as conclusive, in respect to the lands to be relinquished, the lists so to be made by the secretary of the interior; but should not be bound to relinquish 'lands sold or contracted by it, or lands which it uses or needs for railroad purposes, or lands valuable for stone, iron, or coal. ' The act further provides that all qualified settlers, their heirs or assigns, who, prior to January 1, 1898, purchased or settled upon, or claimed in good faith under color of title or claim of right, under any law of the United States or any ruling of the interior department, any part of an odd-numbered section in either the granted or indemnity limits of said land grant, may, in lieu thereof, transfer their claims to other public lands, specified, with credit for their residence and improvements; and that the secretary of the interior should give notice to such persons of their option to take lieu lands before delivering the lists to the railroad grantee or its successor in interest. This act of July 1, 1898, was duly accepted by the Northern Pacific Railway Company on July 13, 1898, and before it had sold or contracted to sell to complainants, or to any one, any of the lands described in the bill.
The obvious purpose of this act was to provide a certain, speedy and equitable way in which all controversies between the railroad grantee or its successors and purchasers or settlers upon odd-numbered sections within the place or indemnity limits of the land grant, who claimed by color of any law of the United States or any ruling of the land department, should be settled and adjusted without contest or litigation either in the land department or in the courts. The railway company, by its express acceptance of the act, because bound by its provisions, and obligated to carry out its terms. By its terms, each of such purchasers and settlers is to be notified by the secretary of the interior of his option to transfer his entry or claim and take other lands in lieu thereof. If he takes such lieu lands, he relinquishes his former land, and this ends his contest with the railroad grantee. As to those...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Pyle
...L.Ed. 681; S. C. & St. P. R. Co. v. United States, 34 F. 835; Phoenix & E. R. Co. v. Arizona E. P. Co., 9 Ariz. 434, 84 P. 1097; Humbird v. Avery, 110 F. 465, U.S. 480, 502, 25 S.Ct. 123, 49 L.Ed. 286; Brown v. Hitchcock, 173 U.S. 473, 19 S.Ct. 485, 43 L.Ed. 772; Northern Lumber Co. v. O'Br......
-
Cosmos Exploration Co. v. Gray Eagle Oil Co.
......72, 20 L.Ed. 485; Shepley v. Cowan, 91 U.S. 330, 23 L.Ed. 424; Marquez v. Frisbie, 101 U.S. 473, 25 L.Ed. 800.'. . . Humbird. v. Avery (C.C.) 110 F. 465, 471. . . An. action of ejectment cannot be maintained in the courts of the. United States on a merely ......
-
Fevre v. Amonson
...Astiazaran v. Santa Rita Land & M. Co., 148 U.S. 80, 13 S.Ct. 457, 37 L.Ed. 376; Hays v. Parker, 2 Wash. Terr. 198, 3 P. 901; Humbird v. Avery, 110 F. 465, 471; Savage v. Worsham, 104 F. 18; Herbien Warren, 2 Okla. 4, 35 P. 575; Allen v. Pedro, 136 Cal. 1, 68 P. 99; Cosmos Exploration Co. v......
-
Northern Lumber Co. v. O'Brien
...13 Wall. 72 20 L.Ed. 485; Samson v. Smiley, 13 Wall. 91, 20 L.Ed. 489; Marquez v. Frisbie, 101 U.S. 473, 25 L.Ed. 800; Humbird v. Avery (C.C.) 110 F. 465, 471. Complainant's right to the timber on the land rests the equitable claim of the Northern Pacific Railway Company to the land, and th......