Laramie National Bank of Laramie City v. Steinhoff

• Decision Date: 03 August 1903
• Citation: 71 P. 992,11 Wyo. 290
• Parties: LARAMIE NATIONAL BANK OF LARAMIE CITY v. STEINHOFF
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

71 P. 992

11 Wyo. 290

LARAMIE NATIONAL BANK OF LARAMIE CITY v. STEINHOFF

Supreme Court of Wyoming

August 3, 1903

11 Wyo. 290 at 311.

Original Opinion of March 31, 1903, Reported at: 11 Wyo. 290.

Judgment modified and affirmed.

N. E Corthell, for plaintiff in error, on rehearing.

Upon the reasoning of the court in its opinion, the judgment should not be entirely vacated. The court had jurisdiction to determine right to possession; and there was a judgment for costs which should not be disturbed.

H. V S. Groesbeck, for defendant in error, on rehearing.

The right of possession in this case must depend and does depend wholly upon the legal title, and the District Court declaring the title in the bank, possession followed and was decreed as a mere incident to the title, and not for any other reason. The question of title now being conclusively and beyond all controversy settled in Mr. Steinhoff by the government patent, which is not even assailed, and under which he is not sought to be converted into or declared to be the trustee for the bank, the whole matter is settled and he is the owner in fee simple of the land in controversy, and this ownership absolutely carries with it the possession of the premises.

It is apparent that the Land Department, in passing upon the Steinhoff homestead entry, passed upon his qualifications as a homesteader, his possession, his right to possession, his residence for the required time, or an excuse which it deemed sufficient for not maintaining his residence on the land, his settlement and improvements on the land, and of all matters which showed that he was entitled to a patent, and, being satisfied in these respects, a patent for the land was issued to him; that these findings which culminated in the patent are conclusive upon the courts unless directly attacked, and no direct attack has been made upon the patent. These matters being within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Land Department, the erroneous and void judgment of the District Court for Albany County must give way, not only as to its findings and judgment on the title, but from the possession flowing from that title, which are merely incidental to the title and are based upon it. The judgment is void in toto because it is apparent therefrom that possession was decreed in the bank for the reason solely that the bank had title, the right of possession and possession of the land in question depending solely upon the legal title. It is impossible to separate the findings and judgment in such a manner as to award possesion to the bank independently of the award of the title. Furthermore, since the rendition of the judgment, facts have arisen which make its enforcement inequitable and shocking to the moral sense. We have the title which gives us the possession and right to the possession, and the findings and judgment of the Land Department in these respects are final and conclusive and beyond all controversy.

If the costs have not been collected, the judgment is dormant in that respect, as the judgment was rendered in 1892, and under our statutes it became dormant five years from its date unless renewed by execution, and this is not shown. (R. S., Sec. 3834.)

(The following authorities were cited as to the effect of the patent: Johnson v. Drew, 171 U.S. 93; Bagnell v. Broderick, 13 Pet., 436; 19 Ency. L. (1st Ed.), 331, 354; R. Co. v. Gordon, 41 Mich. 420; Astrom v. Hammond, 3 McLean, 107; Stark v. Starr, 6 Wall., 402; Irvine v. Marshall, 20 How., 558; Gibson v. Choteau, 13 Wall., 92; Shepley v. Cowan, 91 U.S. 330; Lesseur v. Price, 12 How., 59; French v. Spencer, 21 id., 228; U. S. v. Freyberg, 32 F. 195; Ins. Co. v. Hayden, 21 Colo. , 127; Min. Co. v. Lee, 21 id., 260; Gale v. Best, 78 Cal. 235; Chever v. Horner, 11 Colo. 68; Smelting Co. v. Kent, 104 U.S. 636; Steel v. Smelting Co., 106 id., 447; King v. McAndrews, 111 F. 860; Green v. Barker (Neb.), 66 N. W., 1032; Grandin v. LaBar (N. D.), 57 N. W., 241; Ord v. Pratt, 43 Kan. 419; Jeffords v. Hine (Ariz.), 11 P. 351; Stewart v. Sutherland, 93 Cal. 270; Matthews v. O'Brien, 84 Minn. 505; Gage v. Gunther, 136 Cal. 338; 17 Ency. Pl. & Pr., 128, 129.)

CORN, CHIEF JUSTICE. KNIGHT, J., and POTTER, J., concur.

OPINION ON REHEARING.

CORN, CHIEF JUSTICE.

A rehearing was granted in this case upon the proposition presented by counsel for plaintiff in error that, as the District Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the question of the right of possession at the time the original judgment was rendered and determined it in favor of the bank and no proceedings in error were instituted, no reason appears why so much of such judgment as the court had authority to render should be vacated or annulled; that, therefore, the judgment under consideration should be so modified as to leave the original judgment in force to the extent that it decreed the right of possession at that time to be in the bank and adjudged the costs against the defendant, Steinhoff.

The briefs of counsel having been specially directed to the question whether the original judgment, as a whole, was properly set...