Oregon Short Line Railroad Co. v. Stalker
| Citation | 14 Idaho 362,94 P. 56 |
| Parties | OREGON SHORT LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, Respondent, v. A. R. STALKER et al., Appellants |
| Decision Date | 27 February 1908 |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
APPEAL from the District Court of Third Judicial District for Ada County. Hon. George H. Stewart, Judge.
Action to quiet title. Judgment in favor of plaintiff. Affirmed.
Judgment affirmed. Costs of this appeal awarded to the respondent.
Hugh E McElroy, and Frank Martin, for Appellants.
The patentee, having made final proof, after due notice by publication as required by law, the question of the validity of his claim is res judicata so far as the railroad company is concerned. (
A reasonable view of the law requires that the acceptance and notation on the plat of the right of way merely forms the basis of the claim of the railroad, as does the original application of the homesteader, and that the rights thereby initiated will be protected when the land is disposed of by the government. In fact, this law expressly speaks of the disposition of the land being made "thereafter." The notation of the claim on the record is merely a part of the action of the Department in approving the claim, and rather the beginning than the ending of the jurisdiction of that department, since that jurisdiction ends only with the issuance of patent. (Phoenix & E. R. Ry. Co. v. Arizona Ry. Co., 9 Ariz. 434, 84 P. 1097; Chicago K. & N. Ry. v. Van Cleave, 52 Kan. 665, 33 P. 473; Cathcart v. Minnesota etc. Ry. Co., 34 Land Dec. 619.)
P. L. Williams, and D. Worth Clark, for Respondent.
The station grounds having come to the respondent by grant duly approved by the Secretary of the Interior, and it having fully complied with all the provisions of the law, and all regulations of the department, it cannot be questioned on account of the failure of the local officers to make notations upon the plats in the local land office. (Goist v. Bottum, 5 Land Dec. 643; Linville v. Clearwaters, 11 Land Dec. 356; Pomeroy v. Wright, 2 Land Dec. 164; Coal v. Markrey, 2 Land Dec. 847; Postle v. Strickler, 3 Land Dec. 42; Hawkins v. Lamm, 9 Land Dec. 18; Baird v. Chapman, 10 Land Dec. 210; Richardson v. Moore, 10 Land Dec. 415; Yates v. Glafcke, 10 Land Dec. 673; Van Wyck v. Knevals, 106 U.S. 360, 1 S.Ct. 336, 27 L.Ed. 201; Lytle v. Arkansas, 9 How. (U.S.) 314, 13 L.Ed. 153.)
The law does not require any notation to be made upon the plats in the land office in the case of station grounds. Statutes requiring record of instruments affecting title to real property are contrary to the rule of common law, and unless there is some specific statute requiring it, no such record is necessary. (24 Am. & Eng. Ency., 2d ed., 71; Warnock v. Harlow, 96 Cal. 298, 31 Am. St. Rep. 209, 31 P. 166.)
When a grantee has duly deposited for record a valid instrument at the proper time, in the proper office and with the proper officer, he has performed his whole duty, and subsequent purchasers will be charged with constructive notice notwithstanding the officer does not properly spread the instrument on the record-book, or fails to record it at all. , .)
When the Secretary of the Interior approved our maps for these station grounds at Meridian, that was an adjudication of the fact that they were necessary for such purpose, and the grant attached at the time of filing the map (Phoenix & E. Ry. Co. v. Arizona Ry. Co., 9 Ariz. 434, 84 P. 1097; Cathcart v. M. & M. Ry. Co., 34 Land Dec. 619; Missouri etc. R. R. Co. v. Smith, 171 U.S. 260, 18 S.Ct. 794, 43 L.Ed. 157.)
This case was originally heard at the May term, 1907, of this court, and the opinion therein was filed on May 15, 1907. That opinion appears ante, p. 365, 14 Idaho 362, 94 P. 56, and in it the facts as stipulated and shown by the record are set forth quite fully. A rehearing was granted and the case was again orally argued and further briefs presented by respective counsel at the November term of this court.
The main question for decision is: Did Reed, the pre-emption claimant and patentee, under his pre-emption claim, take the legal subdivisions of the land included in his patent, subject to or exclusive of the railroad company's station grounds located thereon? It appears that Reed initiated whatever right he had to the land by a pre-emption filing dated October 18, 1888, and thereafter on April 24, 1889, made his final pre-emption proof, and later received a patent from the United States for said lands. It is stipulated by the parties that at the date of said Reed's pre-emption filing, the railroad was actually completed and in operation across said land, and that the railroad company caused to be made and filed in duplicate with the register of the U.S. land office at Boise City, Idaho, that being the United States land office of the district in which said land is situated, a profile or map of alignment of its said road in due form, the center line of which corresponds to the center line of said railroad as the same was thereafter constructed; that said profile map was upon February 17, 1888, duly approved by the Honorable Secretary of the Interior and sent back to the said United States land office at Boise; that said railroad from Nampa to Boise was constructed along said route prior to and was in operation on September 1, 1888; that on September 12, 1888, said railway company caused to be filed in duplicate with the register of said land office at Boise City, a map in duplicate showing the tract of land now in controversy claimed for station grounds, station buildings, turnouts, sidetracks, depot and water station; that said map was by the said register transmitted to the Honorable Secretary of the Interior and filed in his office September 20, 1888, and was by him approved December 15, 1888, and returned to the said register of the land office at Boise City.
And it appears from the record that the register of the local land office failed to note upon the plats in his office the station ground as shown by said maps as he was required to do by the regulations of the Interior Department concerning railroad rights of way over public lands under an act of Congress, which rules and regulations were approved by the Acting Secretary of the Interior January 13, 1888. (12 L.D. 423.) The record shows that the railroad company did all that it was required to do under said act of Congress and the said regulations of the Interior Department, to obtain the grant of the right of way and the grant of the station grounds. That being true, the question arises: Shall the railroad company lose its right simply because the officer of the government, to wit, the register of the local land office, failed and neglected to perform the duty required of him under said regulation, to wit, to note upon the plats in his office the station ground as indicated on said maps filed with him?
There is no provision or requirement in the act of March 3, 1875 (18 Stat. at Large, p. 482; U.S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 1568), requiring maps to be filed covering or designating station grounds. Section 1 of said act of Congress is as follows:
"That the right of way through the public lands of the United States is hereby granted to any railroad company duly organized under the laws of any State or Territory except the District of Columbia, or by the Congress of the United States, which shall have filed with the Secretary of the Interior a copy of its articles of incorporation, and due proofs of its organization under the same, to the extent of one hundred feet on each side of the central line of said road; also the right to take, from the public lands adjacent to the line of said road, material, earth, stone, and timber necessary for the construction of said railroad; also, ground adjacent to such right of way for station buildings, depots, machine shops, sidetracks, turnouts, and water stations, not to exceed in amount twenty acres for each station, to the extent of one station for each ten miles of its road."
And the fourth section of said act is as follows:
"That any railroad company desiring to secure the benefits of this act shall, within twelve months after the location of any section of twenty miles of its road, if the same be upon surveyed lands, and, if upon unsurveyed lands, within twelve months after the survey thereof by the United States, file with the register of the land office for the district where such land is located a profile of its road; and, upon approval thereof by the Secretary of the Interior, the same shall be noted upon the plats in said office; and thereafter all such lands over which...
To continue reading
Request your trial