Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Fred Wass 27, 28 1910
| Decision Date | 19 December 1910 |
| Docket Number | No. 181,181 |
| Parties | NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. FRED WASS and Pauline Wass, His Wife. Argued April 27, 28, 1910. Ordered for reargument |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Charles W. Bunn for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Patrick B. Gorman for defendants in error.
In brief, the facts of this case are as follows: While a filed selection by the St. Paul & Northern Pacific Railway Company of land within the indemnity limits of a railroad grant was awaiting the action of the Secretary of the Interior, Fred Wass, in April, 1899, entered upon the land with the intention of making it a homestead, and continued in possession, making improvements, Wass presented to the land office an application Wass pesented to the land office an application to enter the tract under the homestead laws. The register and receiver filed his application, but on the same day rejected it, and refused to receive the fees tendered, basing such refusal and rejection upon the ground that the lands filed for were embraced in the then pending selection. On appeal, the action of the localland office was affirmed by the Commissioner of the General Land Office and by the Secretary of the Interior, respectively. The selection was subsequently approved and a patent for the lands was issued by the governor of Minnesota, all rights under which became vested in the Northern Pacific Railway Company, the plaintiff in error. That company then commenced this action against Wass and his wife in a court of the state of Minnesota to recover possession of the land and damages for the detention. In the answer, among other things, affirmative relief was prayed against the railway company for the conveyance of the legal title to Wass. A demurrer to the answer was overruled upon the authority of the decision in Sjoli v. Dreschel, 199 U. S. 564, 50 L. ed. 311, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 154, and a decree was entered in favor of Wass, granting the relief prayed by him. This decree was affirmed by the supreme court of Minnesota upon the authority thority of the Sjoli Case as well as the decision of the circuit court of appeals in Hoyt v. Weyerhaeuser, 88 C. C. A. 404, 161 Fed. 324. The opinion just announced, reviewing the action of the circuit court of appeals in the Hoyt Case, and reversing the decree entered in that case, comclusively establishes that error was committed by the court below, and therefore requires a reversal. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Minnesota is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
This action was instituted in the district court of Todd county, Minnesota, by the Northern Pacific Railway Company, a Wisconsin corporation, to recover the possession and damages for the detention of the southeast quarter of section 13, township 129, north of range 32 west, situated in the above county.
The answer of the defendant Wass states certain facts both by way of defense and as the basis for an affirmative decree against the railway company, declaring that the legal title to the land is held in trust for his use and benefit, and should be conveyed to him. The company, demurred to the answer as not stating facts sufficient to constitute either a defense or a counterclaim. The demurrer was overruled, and the case was determined on the facts stated in the answer, as well as on those set forth in a special finding. By the decree it was adjudged that the legal title was held in trust for the defendant, and the plaintiff was ordered to convey the title to him by sufficient deed. On the authority of Sjoli v. Dreschel, 199 U. S. 564, 50 L. ed. 311, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 154, and Hoyt v. Weyerhaeuser, 88 C. C. A. 404, 161 Fed. 324, the supreme court of Minnesota affirmed the decree. The case is here for review.
Upon the record before us the following facts must be taken as beyond question:
1. The lands in question were surveyed public lands of the United States within the 20 miles indemnity limits of what are known as the Northern Pacific Railroad land grants made by Congress to the territory of Minnesota by the act of March 3d, 1857 (11 Stat. at L. 195, chap. 99), and by the act of March 3d, 1865 (13 Stat. at L. 526, chap. 105), granting lands to that state, which last act was amended March 3d, 1871 (16 Stat. at L. 588, chap. 144).
2. By an act of March 1st, 1877, the legislature of Minnesota transferred all its rights in these lands to the Western Railway Company of that state. That company subsequently assigned its rights to the St. Paul & Northern Pacific Railway Company, the predecessor in interest of the present plaintiff.
3. On the 31st day of December, 1877, the Western Railway Company filed in the proper land office a list purporting to contain a selection of lands under the indemnity provisions of the grants in question; not, however, designating any particular lands within the primary or place limits of either grant as the basis for the selected tracts. But the lands here in question were among those embraced in the above general list of selections.
4. Nearly twelve years after the filing of the list of selections by the Western Railway Company, namely, on December 4th, 1889, the St. Paul & Northern Pacific Railway Company filed in the local land office an amended list of the selection of indemnity lands, which list included the land now in dispute. And on February 12th, 1892, it filed a rearranged list of indemnity selections, and, then, for the first time, indicated the tract alleged to have been lost in primary limits, which loss it requested to be supplied by a particular tract in indemnity limits. Up to that time the Secretary of the Interior had not acted on that request nor approved any of the selection lists filed.
5. The fact may be here stated, though it is not very important, that the lands above described are also within the indemnity limits of the Northern Pacific grant made by the act of July 2d, 1864 (13 Stat. at L. 365, chap. 217), and were included in a withdrawal of indemnity lands made by the Secretary of the Interior on December 26th, 1871. But that withdrawal was revoked by the General Land Office, September 6th, 1887, and no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Great Northern Ry Co v. Reed
...R. Co. v. Amacker, supra; Weyerhaeuser v. Hoyt, 31 S. Ct. 300, 219 U. S. 380, 387 et seq., 55 L. Ed. 258; Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Wass, 31 S. Ct. 321, 219 U. S. 426, 55 L. Ed. 280; Svor v. Morris, 33 S. Ct. 385, 227 U. S. 524, 527, 57 L. Ed. 623; Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Houston, 34 ......
-
Rasmus Svor v. Catherine Morris
...Ct. Rep. 420, and unlike Weyerhaeuser v. Hoyt, 219 U. S. 380, 55 L. ed. 258, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 300, and Northern P. R. Co. v. Wass, 219 U. S. 426, 55 L. ed. 280, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 321, and yet is within the principle recognized and enforced in each; viz., that, as between conflicting claims t......
-
Morris v. Svor
...to the Secretary of the Interior. Weyerhaeuser v. Hoyt, 219 U. S. 380, 31 Sup. Ct. 300, 55 L. Ed. 258;Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Wass, 219 U. S. 426, 31 Sup. Ct. 321, 55 L. Ed. 280. We accordingly hold that the facts found by the trial court support its conclusion of law and the judgment i......
-
Kinyon v. Christianson
...from by the federal court. Weyerhaeuser v. Hoyt, 219 U. S. 380, 31 Sup. Ct. 300, 55 L. Ed. 258, and Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Wass, 219 U. S. 426, 31 Sup. Ct. 321, 55 L. Ed. 280, are clearly distinguishable from the Froyseth Case. In those cases it appeared that, though defendant settled ......