Northern Pac Co v. Sanders
Decision Date | 19 April 1897 |
Docket Number | No. 12,12 |
Citation | 41 L.Ed. 1139,17 S.Ct. 671,166 U.S. 620 |
Parties | NORTHERN PAC. R. CO. v. SANDERS et al |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
[Syllabus from pages 620-621 intentionally omitted] A. B. Browne, for plaintiff in error.
W. F. Sanders and S. S. Burdett, for defendants in error.
Mr. Justice HARLAN, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.
This action was brought by the Northern Pacific Railroad Company to recover from the defendants in error (the original defendants) the possession of section 21, township 10 N., of range 3 W., in the county of Lewis and Clarke, in the state of Montana.
The railroad company claims title under the act of congress of July 2, 1864 (13 Stat. 365, c. 217), granting lands to aid in the construction of a railroad and telegraph line from Lake Superior to Puget Sound, on the Pacific Coast, by the northern route.
The defendants do not assert title in themselves, but resist the claim of the railroad company upon the ground that at the time of the definite location of the Northern Pacific Railroad, and of the filing of the plat thereof in the office of the commissioner of the general land office, such 'claims' were made of record upon the lands in dispute as excluded them from the grant to the Northern Pacific Railroad Company.
Congress granted to the Northern Pacific Railroad Company every alternate section of public land, 'not mineral,' designated by odd numbers, to the amount of 20 alternate sections per mile on each side of the railroad line, as the company might adopt, through the territories of the United States, and 10 alternate sections per mile on each side of the railroad whenever it passed through any state, Section 3.
The sixth section directed the lands to be surveyed for 40 miles in width on both sides of the entire line of the road after the general route was fixed, and as fast as was required by the contruction of the railroad, and provided that Section 6.
The amended complaint alleged that the railroad company duly accepted the terms and conditions of the act of congress; that the general route of the railroad extending through the state of Montana was duly fixed February 21, 1872; that the land in dispute was on and within 40 miles of such general route, and at that date was 'public land, 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'; that at the date of the passage of the act of 1864, as well as when said general route was fixed, no part of the land in controversy was 'known mineral land,' and was not mineral land, nor was any part of said last-described land within any exceptions from said grant'; that on July 6, 1882, the railroad company definitely fixed the line of its railroad, extending opposite to and past said section 21, township 10 N., range 3 W., and filed a plat thereof in the office of the commissioner of the general land office; that 'said land is on, and within forty miles of, said line of railroad so definitely fixed'; that thereafter the company duly constructed and completed that portion of its railroad and telegraph line extending over and along its line of definite location, whereupon the president of the United States appointed three commissioners to examine the same, who reported that that portion of the line had been completed in a good, substantial, and workmanlike manner; that the president of the United States duly accepted said line of road and telegraph so constructed and completed; that at the date of so definitely locating the line of railroad, and at the time of the filing of the plat thereof in the office of the commissioner of the general land office, as above stated, the land in dispute was 'not known' to be mineral land, but was agricultural land, 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.'
The defendants, in their answer, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Oregon Short Line Railraod Co. v. Quigley
... ... 3. Act ... of Congress of March 3, 1873, granting a right of way to the ... Utah and Northern Railway Company, and requiring the filing ... of a map of definite location with the Secretary of the ... Interior, is substantially complied with, ... 261, 44 L.Ed. 358; Mennotti v ... Dillon, 167 U.S. 703-720, 17 S.Ct. ep. 945, 42 L.Ed ... 333; Northern P. R. R. Co. v. Sanders, 166 U.S ... 620-632, 634, 636, 17 S.Ct. 671, 41 L.Ed. 1139; United ... States v. Northern P. R. R. Co., 152 U.S. 284-296, 298, ... 14 S.Ct ... ...
-
Richardson v. Midwest Refining Co.
... ... D. 405; Townsend, et al. 49 ... L. D. 440; Shepley v. Cowan, 91 U.S. 330; ... Whitney v. Taylor, 158 U.S. 85; R. R. Co. v ... Sanders, 166 U.S. 620; R. R. Co. v. Musser-Sauntry ... Co., 168 U.S. 604; Weyerhausser v. Hoyt, 219 ... U.S. 380; R. R. Co. v. McComas, 250 U.S ... before us for consideration, which does not appear ever to ... have been before the courts for construction. In Great ... Northern Railway Co. v. Steinke, 261 U.S. 119, 67 L.Ed ... 564, 43 S.Ct. 316, Mr. Justice Van Devanter, in discussing ... the effect to be given the ... ...
-
Yellowstone River Llc v. Meriwether Land Fund I Llc
...was definitely fixed. 13 Stat. at 367–68; Nelson, 188 U.S. at 116, 23 S.Ct. at 304; see also e.g. N. Pac. R.R. Co. v. Sanders, 166 U.S. 620, 629–36, 17 S.Ct. 671, 674–77, 41 L.Ed. 1139 (1897). In lieu of any odd-numbered sections (or parts thereof) that had been granted, sold, reserved, occ......
-
Southern Pac. R. Co. v. Ambler Grain & Milling Co.
...Ed. 479; United States v. Winona, etc., R. Co., 165 U. S. 463, 475, 17 S. Ct. 368, 41 L. Ed. 789; Northern Pacific R. Co. v. Sanders, 166 U. S. 620, 630, 631, 17 S. Ct. 671, 41 L. Ed. 1139; Menotti v. Dillon, 167 U. S. 703-715, 17 S. Ct. 945, 42 L. Ed. 333; Northern Pacific R. Co. v. DeLace......