Matthews v. O'Brien
| Decision Date | 06 December 1901 |
| Docket Number | 12,709 - (85) |
| Citation | 88 N.W. 12,84 Minn. 505 |
| Parties | M. IRTIE MATTHEWS v. JOHN H. O'BRIEN |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in ejectment in the district court for Stevens county. The case was tried before Powers, J., and a jury, which rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff for possession of the land and $675 for the use and occupation thereof. From an order denying a motion for judgment in his favor notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, defendant appealed. Affirmed.
Public Land -- Jurisdiction of State Courts.
The courts will not assume jurisdiction in disputes over title to United States government lands, where it appears that title is still pending and undetermined in the government land department. McHenry v. Nygaard, 72 Minn. 2. But where the action is based upon the right of possession only, such rule does not apply.
Homestead Entry -- Trespass.
An action may be maintained by a homestead entryman in possession against a subsequent trespasser to recover damages in cropping the land. It is immaterial that the possession of the trespasser commenced prior to the issuing of the homestead entry, if such possession was not acquired and continued by virtue of any individual right of entry.
Lewis C. Spooner and Thomas Kneeland, for appellant.
Cliff & Purcell, for respondent.
The complaint in this action alleges that ever since April 20, 1896, respondent has been the owner of the one hundred sixty acres in question, on which, the same being vacant government land, subject to entry, she obtained a homestead entry. During the year 1896, and subsequent to the date of her entry, appellant unlawfully entered into possession of these premises, which he has ever since continued to cultivate and occupy. This action is brought to recover damages for the crop of 1897 so raised by respondent and cropped by appellant, and for damages which occurred to her garden in 1900. The prayer for relief is that respondent be adjudged owner and entitled to possession of the land, and for damages sustained by her. The answer put in issue the allegations of the complaint, denied possession, and set up in detail the facts in reference to a contest of respondent's homestead entry, which was alleged to be still pending in the United States land department. At the trial the parties stipulated the facts with reference to the title, and the question of damages was submitted to the jury.
The principal question in the case is, was respondent entitled to recover damages by virtue of her homestead entry, the validity of which was pending on appeal before the land commissioner? To understand the rights of the parties, it will be necessary to state the precise situation as determined by the stipulated facts. The land in question was supposed to have been included in what is known as the St Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Company's indemnity limits, which prior to October, 1896, had been withdrawn from the public; but in that month the railway company's claim was decided adversely to it, and the land held open for settlement. In January, 1896, respondent made application for a homestead entry, which was granted on April 20, 1896, and she received the usual certificate to that effect. In the following June appellant made application for a homestead entry upon the same land, on which he had been a resident and occupant for some years previous to his application. In July, 1896, respondent entered into possession. Appellant's application was rejected by the local land officers, and upon his application the general land department instituted a contest against respondent's entry, in which contest the local land officers decided for respondent. Appellant appealed to the general land commissioner, who reversed the decision; but upon appeal to the secretary of the interior the decision was again...
To continue reading
Request your trial