Lewis v. Shaw

• Decision Date: 17 July 1893
• Citation: 57 F. 516
• Parties: LEWIS v. SHAW et al.
• Court: United States Circuit Court, District of Washington

57 F. 516

LEWIS v. SHAW et al.

United States Circuit Court, D. Washington, Western Division.

July 17, 1893

John Paul Judson, for complainant.

Crowley & Sullivan, for defendants.

HANFORD District Judge.

The land which is the subject of controversy in this suit was entered in due form and paid for by one Charles C. Miller on the 16th day of March, 1883, under the provisions of the act of congress approved June 3, 1878, providing for the sale of timber lands in the states of California, Nevada, and Oregon and Washington Territory, (Supp. Rev. St. (2d Ed.] 167.) At the time of said entry Miller was an employe of one George H Ryan, and obtained from him the money used in purchasing said land from the government. For the purpose of securing the repayment of the money so advanced, on the 22d day of March 1883, Miller gave to Ryan a bond obligating himself to convey one-half of the tract; and on August 31, 1883, gave to Ryan a deed for one-half of said tract for the consideration of $325. On September 5, 1883, Ryan conveyed the entire tract by warranty deed to Benjamin McCready, for the price of $9,000. McCready, on the 2d day of January, 1884, by warranty deed conveyed the tract to the complainant, who is a citizen and resident of the state of Iowa, for the price of $9,000, and to confirm his title, Miller, on the 18th of July, 1885, for a nominal consideration, gave to the complainant a warranty deed for the entire tract. On the 3d of March, 1885, the commissioner of the general land office, upon a report made by a special agent of the interior department, representing said land to be agricultural land, and therefore not subject to sale as timber land, and that said entry was made for the benefit of Ryan, notified Miller that his entry was held for cancellation. A hearing was thereupon had before the register and receiver, and such proceedings followed that upon an appeal to the secretary of the interior the land was adjudged to be timber land, subject to sale under said act, but that the entry was made for the benefit of Ryan, and on that ground it was canceled. No notice of these proceedings was given to the complainant, although the fact of his purchase of the land and his post-office address were known to the special agent who made the report, and to all the officers of the land department who had occasion to review the evidence in the case, and the complainant had no information in regard to said proceedings prior to the year 1889. In February 1890, he petitioned the commissioner of the general land office to reopen the case, that he might be heard in defense of his rights, which petition was denied. The bill of complaint avers that the land is in fact timber land, subject to sale under said act of congress; that Miller's entry was in all respects regular and bona fide, and that he did not, prior to said entry, make any agreement whereby the title he should acquire would inure...