Northern Pac Co v. Mussersauntry Land, Logging Manufacturing

• Decision Date: 20 December 1897
• Docket Number: No. 121,121
• Citation: 168 U.S. 604,42 L.Ed. 596,18 S.Ct. 205
• Parties: NORTHERN PAC. R. CO. et al. v. MUSSERSAUNTRY LAND, LOGGING & MANUFACTURING Co. et al
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

168 U.S. 604

18 S.Ct. 205

42 L.Ed. 596

NORTHERN PAC. R. CO. et al.

v MUSSERSAUNTRY LAND, LOGGING & MANUFACTURING Co. et al.

No. 121.

December 20, 1897.

The facts in this case are as follows: On June 3, 1856, congress made a grant to the state of Wisconsin to aid in the construction of a railroad of every alternate section of land designated by odd number , for six sections in width, on each side of the line, with the right to select indemnity within 15-mile limits. 11 Stat. 20. The line of this road was definitely fixed September 20, 1858. This grant was enlarged by the act of May 5, 1864 (13 Stat. 66), to one of ten alternate sections on each side per mile, with indemnity limits extended to 20 miles from the line of the road. The Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Company, one of the defendants herein, became the beneficiary of this grant. The road was afterwards constructed, and the lands in controversy are more than 15 but less than 20 miles from the line of definite location and construction. In March, 1866, the lands within the indemnity limits nemed in the act of 1864 were by the secretary of the interior withdrawn from sale, and nitice thereof given to the local land officers. This withdrawal remained unrescinded and unaltered until 1889. In 1883 the defendant railway company selected the lands in controversy in lieu of lands lost in its place limits. These selections were approved by the local land officers, and transmitted to the commissioner of the general land office for his approval. In the same year, the state of Wisconsin issued patents for the lands to that company, which thereafter sold and conveyed them to the grantor of its co-defendant, the land, logging, and manufacturing company. On a readjust- ment of the land grant, the railway company's title failed, and thereafter the grantee of the railway company purchased them, pursuant to the act of March 3, 1887 (24 Stat. 557).

On the other hand, the Northern Pacific Railroad Company, plaintiff and appellant, on July 2, 1864 (13 Stat. 365, 367), received a grant from congress. The third section of the act making this grant contains this description of the lands granted:

'Every alternate section of public land * * * to the amount of twenty alternate sections per mile, on each side of said railroad line, as said company may adopt, through the territories of the United States, and ten alternate sections of land per mile, on each side of said railroad whenever it passes through any state, and whenever, on the line thereof, the United States have full title, not reserved, sold, granted, or otherwise appropriated, and free from pre-emption, or other claims or rights, at the time the line of said road is definitely fixed, and a plat thereof filed in the office of the commissioner of the general land office; and whenever, prior to said time, any of said sections or parts of sections shall have been granted, sold, reserved, occupied by homestead settlers, or pre-empted, or otherwise disposed of, other lands shall be selected by said company in lieu thereof.'

On July 30, 1870, plaintiff fixed the general route of its road, and filed plats thereof with the secretary of the interior. On August 13, 1870, a withdrawal of the lands within 20 miles of this route was ordered in aid of the grant. On July 6, 1882, plaintiff definitely fixed that portion of its line opposite these lands. They are within the limits of the above-mentioned withdrawal, and also within the place limits of plaintiff's grant, as those limits were adjusted and fixed according to the map of definite location. Relying upon the title acquired by this grant, and the proceedings had thereunder, as above described, the plaintiff filed its bill on May 3, 1893, in the circuit court of the United States for the Western district of Wisconsin, to restrain the issue of patents to the manufacturing company, and to quiet its own title. A demurrer to this bill was, in May, 1894, sustained, and a decree entered dismissing the bill. On appeal to the court of appeals for the Seventh circuit this decree was affirmed (34 U. S. App. 66, 16 C. C. A. 97, and 68 Fed. 993), and thereupon the plaintiff brought the case to this court for review.

C. W. Bunn, for appellants.

Thos. Wilson, for appellees.

Mr. Justice BREWER, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered he opinion of the court.

But a single question is presented in this case, and that is whether the withdrawal from sale by the land department in March, 1866, of lands within the indemnity limits of the grant of 1856 and 1864, exempted such lands from the operation of the grant to the plaintiff. It will be perceived that the grant in aid of the defendant railway company was prior in date to that to the plaintiff, and that, before the time of the filing of plaintiff's maps of general route and definite location, the lands were withdrawn for the benefit of the defendant. The grant to the plaintiff was only of lands to which the United States had 'full title, not reserved, sold, granted, or otherwise appropriated, and free from pre-emption, or other claims or rights, at the time the line of said road is definitely fixed.' 13 Stat. 365.

The withdrawal by the secretary in aid of the grant to the state of Wisconsin was valid, and operated to withdraw the odd-numbered sections within its limits from desposal by the land officers of the government under the general land laws. The act of the secretary was, in effect, a reservation. Wolcott v. Des Moines Co., 5 Wall. 681; Wolsey v. Chapman, 101 U. S. 755, and cases cited in the opinion; Hamblin v. Land Co., 147 U.S. 531, 13 Sup. Ct. 353, and cases cited in the opinion. It has also been held that such a withdrawal is effective against claims arising under subsequent railroad land grants. St. Paul & P. R. Co. v. Northern P. R. Co., 139 U. S. 1, 17, 18, 11 Sup. Ct. 389; Railroad Co. v. Forsythe, 159 U. S. 46, 54, 15 Sup. Ct. 1020; Spencer v. McDougal, 159 U. S. 62, 15 Sup. Ct. 1026.

While it is true that the intent of congress in respect to a land grant is to be determined by a consideration of all the provisions of the statute, and that the word 'reserved' may not always be held to include lands withdrawn for the purpose of supplying possible deficiencies in some prior land grant, yet, as that is the ordinary scope of the word, if any narrower or different meaning is to be attributed to it in this grant the reasons therefor must...