McClure v. United States

Decision Date03 April 1911
Docket Number1,858.
Citation187 F. 265
PartiesMcCLURE et al. v. UNITED STATES.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

The bill of complaint in this case was brought by the United States attorney for the District of Oregon by direction of the Attorney General of the United States to cancel a certain patent issued by the United States to one John Reese upon a false and fraudulently forged homestead application in the fictitious name of John Reese. The false and fraudulent proceedings to obtain a patent as alleged in the bill of complaint are, in substance, that the lands described in the patent were located in the state of Oregon, and prior to the 20th day of September, 1903, were unappropriated public lands of the United States, and thereafter and ever since have been reserved and set aside as a part of the Cascade forest reserve; that Horace G. McKinley, Robert Montague, and other persons to the complainant unknown, taking advantage of the pretended authority conferred upon the said Robert B Montague as deputy clerk of Linn county, Or., and with intent to defraud the United States out of the title and possession to the land described in the bill of complaint, and in order that they might secure to themselves the use and benefit of said land as a basis for lieu selection under the act of June 4, 1897 (30 Stat. 36 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1541)), falsely and fraudulently forged an application and affidavit to enter said lands under the homestead laws in the name of John Reese, a fictitious person, and the said Robert B. Montague falsely and fraudulently affixed the seal of the county clerk of Linn county, Or., to said application of homestead entry and subscribed the name of W. F. Hammer, county clerk thereto, and thereupon said Horace G. McKinley and said Robert B. Montague caused said affidavit and application for homestead entry to be filed in the United States Land Office at Oregon City, Or., on the 20th day of October, 1900.

It is alleged that there was no such person as John Reese; that the name of John Reese where it appears in the application and affidavit of homestead entry was forged either by Horace G McKinley or Robert B. Montague or other persons acting with them; that no person ever settled or resided upon or made improvements upon the lands in question. It is further alleged that these proceedings were had in order that the said McKinley and Montague and other persons acting with them might thereby falsely and fraudulently acquire title to said lands and secure the benefit therefrom as a basis for lieu selection under the laws of the United States; that McKinley Montague, or the persons acting with them paid to the receiver of the United States Land Office at Oregon City the fees of that office upon filing the said false and forged application of homestead entry, and a proper receiver's certificate was issued therefor; that McKinley and Montague caused to be filed with the register and receiver of the Land Office a notice in the name of John Reese, which name of John Reese had been forged by the parties named; that said notice was to the effect that the said John Reese intended to make final proof to establish his claim to the land before the county clerk of Linn county, Or., by certain named witnesses whose names were false, forged, and fictitious; that the register of the Land Office, being ignorant of the facts and having no means of ascertaining the same, issued a notice in compliance with the pretended application; that, pursuant to said scheme to defraud the United States out of title and possession to said land, McKinley and Montague falsely and fraudulently made and executed fictitious homestead proofs upon said land, and forged the name of John Reese thereto as applicant and claimant, and the names of John F. Foster and Willis...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Sawyer v. Gray
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington
    • April 10, 1913
    ... 205 F. 160 SAWYER et al. v. GRAY et al. No. 1,696. United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Southern Division. April 10, 1913 ... Herbert ... 14, 22 L.Ed. 311; Williams v ... Gibbes, 20 How. 535, 15 L.Ed. 1013; U.S. v. McClure ... (C.C.) 174 F. 510; U.S. v. Hyde et al. (C.C.) ... 174 F. 175; Brundy v. Mayfield, 15 ... ...
  • Iowa Land & Trust Co. v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • July 29, 1914
    ... ... Floyd's Acceptances, 7 Wall. 666, 676 ... (19 L.Ed. 169); March v. Fulton County, 10 Wall ... 676, 683 (19 L.Ed. 1040).' ... We ... think the present case comes clearly within the principles ... above announced. McLeod v. United States, 187 F ... 261, 109 C.C.A. 207, and McClure v. United States, ... 187 F. 265, 111 C.C.A. 1, are cases where the Court of ... Appeals of the Ninth Circuit held for cancellation patents to ... land even where the land had been conveyed to bona fide ... purchasers ... It is ... claimed, however, that this court in the case of ... ...
  • McLeod v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • April 3, 1911
  • United States v. Conklin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Montana
    • January 24, 1944
    ...the inference that this is one of them, the defense of being a bona fide purchaser for value is not available, citing McClure v. United States, 9 Cir., 187 F. 265 and Clark v. Herington, 186 U.S. 206, 22 S.Ct. 872, 46 L.Ed. 1128. The court has examined the cases cited and also a companion c......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT