Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Soderberg

• Decision Date: 14 March 1898
• Parties: NORTHERN PAC. RY. CO. v. SODERBERG.
• Court: United States Circuit Court, District of Washington, Northern Division

86 F. 49

NORTHERN PAC. RY. CO. v. SODERBERG.

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

March 14, 1898

Fred M Dudley, for complainant.

Geo. H Fortson, for defendant.

HANFORD District Judge.

This is a suit for an injunction to restrain the defendant from working a granite quarry in unsurveyed land, which, when surveyed, will be within the lines of an odd-numbered section within the place limits of the Northern Pacific Railroad Company's land grant, and to prevent the defendant from removing and selling building stone taken from said quarry. The main question upon which the parties have joined issue is whether the particular subdivision of land within which the quarry is situated is mineral or nonmineral, within the intent and meaning of the act of congress granting lands to the Northern Pacific Railroad Company to aid in the construction of its main and branch lines. The decisions of the supreme court establish the rule that, where lands of a particular class or description have been granted by an act of congress, without making other particular provision as to the manner in which the same are to be identified, questions as to the character of lands within the limits of the grant which are claimed under it, are to be decided in the first instance by the officers of the land department, and that decisions of such questions made in the land department are conclusive, unless impeached for fraud, or overruled by the courts on the ground of error in the interpretation or application of the law. Steel v. Refining Co., 106 U.S. 447-457, 1 Sup.Ct. 389; Heath v. Wallace, 138 U.S. 573-587, 11 Sup.Ct. 380; Barden v. Railroad Co., 154 U.S. 288-349, 14 Sup.Ct. 1030; Rogers Locomotive Machine Works v. American Emigrant Co., 164 U.S. 559-577, 17 Sup.Ct. 188. In the case of Barden v Railroad Co. the supreme court of the United States having under consideration this identical land grant, ruled that the law places under the supervision of the interior department and its subordinate officers acting under its direction the control of all matters affecting the disposition of public lands of the United States, and that the officers of said department are especially authorized to determine whether lands claimed under any particular law or congressional grant, are swamp lands, timber lands, agricultural lands, or mineral lands, and to so designate them in the patents which it issues. The decision is direct and positive to the point that the land department has power to determine the question as to the mineral or nonmineral character of any particular tract claimed under the grant, and that its...