Oregon Short Line Railraod Co. v. Quigley
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Idaho |
Citation | 80 P. 401,10 Idaho 770 |
Parties | OREGON SHORT LINE RAILROAD COMPANY v. QUIGLEY |
Decision Date | 15 March 1905 |
RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY-ACT OF CONGRESS GRANTING SAME-WHEN GRANT VESTS-PUBLIC LANDS-OF WHAT CONSIST-POWER OF CONGRESS OVER SAME IS ABSOLUTE-ESTOPPEL BY DEED NOT APPLICABLE TO GRANTEE-ADVERSE POSSESSION AND STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS-WHEN PLEA NOT AVAILABLE.
1. The power of Congress over the public lands is plenary so long as title thereto remains in the government, and no right of property therein has vested in another.
2. No right of property, as against the government, vests in a settler on public lands until he has complied with all the prerequisites for acquiring title and paid the purchase money.
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, so far as settlers are concerned, by the actual construction and operation of the road.
4 ID.-The grant for right of way became definitely fixed by the actual construction of the road as effectually as it could have been by the filing of a map of location.
5. The grant by Congress of a right of way one hundred feet wide on each side of the central line of the track was a conclusive determination of the reasonable and necessary quantity of land to be dedicated to such use, and carried with it the right of possession to the whole of such grant.
6. As a general rule of law, the grantee named in a deed of conveyance is not estopped to deny the title of his grantor.
7 ID.-The estoppel exists only where there is an obligation to restore the possession in some event or upon some contingency.
8. The grant by Congress of a right of way is not an absolute fee for all purposes, but is in the nature of a conditional grant and limited to use and occupation for railway purposes. The franchise and right of way are inseparably attached to each other.
9 ID.-The company could not by its grant convey any part of the right of way in such manner or for such purpose as would sever the right of possession from the franchise to operate and maintain a railway line thereon.
10. ID.-It therefore follows that adverse possession cannot ripen into a right which would divert the use and occupation of such right of way from that to which Congress made the dedication.
11. The statute of limitations will not run against an action to maintain the integrity of the right of way granted by Congress for a specific use and purpose.
(Syllabus by the court.)
APPEAL from District Court in and for Bannock County. Honorable Alfred Budge, Judge.
STATEMENT OF FACTS.
The plaintiff commenced this action in the lower court against the defendant to quiet its title to a right of way two hundred feet wide across two adjoining tracts of land of one hundred and sixty acres each, which were originally settled upon by Joseph Hendricks and Andrew Quigley, respectively The plaintiff, the Oregon Short Line Railroad Company, is the grantee and successor to the Utah and Northern Railway Company. On March 3, 1873, an act of Congress was approved granting a right of way to the Utah and Northern Railway Company over the public lands in the territories of Montana, Utah and Idaho which act is as follows:
In 1875, and after the lands in dispute had been surveyed and were open to sale and settlement, Quigley and Hendricks each located on a one hundred and sixty acre tract of land, and continued with their families to occupy their respective lands until they thereafter acquired patents from the government. In 1878 the Utah and Northern Railway Company decided to build their road by way of Marsh valley, Portneuf river and Snake river valley, instead of over the originally planned route by way of Soda Springs and Snake river valley. In the course of the construction of the road and during the spring of '78, they came to the claims occupied by Quigley and Hendricks, and in order to immediately construct over the lands so occupied, the railway company, on May 28th, through its trustee, Jay Gould, purchased from Quigley and Hendricks a right of way sixty feet wide across their respective possessory claims, and took from each a quitclaim deed, and at the same time took contracts from each wherein they agreed to execute to the railway company warranty deeds for such right of way upon receiving patent therefor from the government. The road was immediately constructed across these tracts of land and was completed and in operation prior to the 20th of June following. On June 20, 1878, and after the construction and completion of the road, Congress passed an additional and supplemental act to that of March 3, 1873, granting to the Utah and Northern Railway Company the right of way over the public lands by way of Marsh valley, Portneuf river and Snake river valley, which act is as follows:
No further transactions appear to have taken place between the railway company and Quigley and Hendricks or their successors in interest, since the approval of the act of Congress of June 20, 1878. In the meanwhile the railway company have maintained and operated the road, and it is agreed that the company has used and occupied all of such right of way necessary or needful for its purposes...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fountain v. Lewiston Nat. Bank
...... the state of Oregon, and was forwarded by the said William F. Kettenbach, Sr., ...663, 11 S.Ct. 641, 35 L.Ed. 305;. Oregon Short Line Ry. Co. v. Quigley, 10 Idaho 770,. 80 P. 401. . ......
-
Oregon Short Line Railroad Co. v. Stalker
......426, 26 L.Ed. 578;. Bybee v. Oregon etc. R. R. Co. , 139 U.S. 663, 11. S.Ct. 641, 35 L.Ed. 305; Oregon Short Line R. R. Co. v. Quigley, 10 Idaho 770, 80 P. 401.) Where, on the other. hand, the company seeks to reserve the right in advance of. construction of its road under the ......
-
Hodges v. Lemp
...... prescribed by the legislature should be void. ( Oregon. etc. R. Co. v. Quigley, 10 Idaho 770, 80 P. 401.). . ... 1912, as he had been a resident of said city but a short time. and had no interest in the title to said property as ......
-
Minidoka & Southwestern Railroad Company v. Weymouth
...... of way one hundred feet on each side of the central line of. the track was a conclusive determination of the ... therein named and its successor. ( Oregon Short Line R. Co. v. Quigley, 10 Idaho 770, 80 P. 401; ......