Rio Grande Western Ry. Co. v. Stringham

• Decision Date: 30 August 1910
• Docket Number: 2098
• Court: Utah Supreme Court
• Parties: RIO GRANDE WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. STRINGHAM et al

110 P. 868

38 Utah 113

RIO GRANDE WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. STRINGHAM et al

No. 2098

Supreme Court of Utah

August 30, 1910

APPEAL from District Court, Third District; Hon. C. W. Morse, Judge.

Action to quiet title by the Rio Grande Western Railway Company against Thomas B. Stringham and others.

Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.

REVERSED AND REMANDED, WITH DIRECTIONS.

Van Cott, Allison & Riter for appellant.

A. A Duncan and N.W. Sonnedecker for respondents.

STRAUP C. J. FRICK and McCARTY, JJ., concur.

OPINION

STRAUP, C. J.

This is an action to quiet title to a strip of land two-hundred feet in width extending through two quarter sections. The defendants denied plaintiff's ownership and right of possession, and alleged ownership and possession in themselves.

The material facts found by the court are: In September, 1872, the Bingham Canyon & Camp Floyd Railroad Company, a corporation, was organized to construct and operate a steam railroad from Sandy, Salt Lake County, to Lewiston, Tooele County, a distance of thirty-five miles. In 1873 the road was built from Sandy to Bingham, a distance of sixteen and thirteen-hundredths miles, and ever since has been maintained and operated between those points. The road was not constructed beyond Bingham. For the purposes of availing itself of the benefits of an act of Congress entitled "An act granting to railroads the right of way through the public lands of the United States," approved March 3, 1875, c. 152, 18 Stat. 482 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1568), the Bingham Canyon & Camp Floyd Railroad Company in September, 1875, "filed with the Secretary of the Interior a copy of its articles of incorporation and due proof of its organization under the same, which were accepted, received, and approved by him on the 20th day of September, 1875; and in the year 1876 it filed with the register of the United States Land Office at Salt Lake City, Utah, the district where the lands over which its road was built were located, a profile and map of its road as then built between Sandy and the town of Bingham, which profile and map showed that the railroad was built by the end of 1873, and showed the line of route of said railroad to be over and across the premises in question, and that such profile and map were approved by the Secretary of the Interior on the 30th day of October, 1876." In 1870 Dorr P. Curtis and George Stringham settled upon unsurveyed public lands of the United States, including the strip in dispute, with the intention of thereafter acquiring them as agricultural lands under the pre-emption laws of the United States. Curtis built a house and a barn, and Stringham a cabin and barn and fences, on the lands settled upon by them. Curtis continued to reside on his lands until 1875, when he sold his possessory rights and surrendered possession to Stringham. In May, 1873, these lands were surveyed under the authority of the United States. The survey was approved by the Surveyor General in May, 1874, and on the 1st day of August, 1874, a certified copy of the township plat of the survey of the premises was filed in the United States Land Office at Salt Lake City. No declaratory statement perfecting his preemption right was filed by Curtis. No declaratory statement was filed by Stringham until the 12th day of June, 1883. On the 4th day of August, 1883, Nicholas Treweek and others located a placer mining claim on a portion of the ground settled upon by Stringham and Curtis. Upon an application made by Treweek for patent survey, a dispute arose between Stringham and Treweek involving conflicting rights of possession. They thereupon on the 11th day of May, 1886, entered into a written agreement, by the terms of which they agreed that Treweek should proceed with his application for patent, and, when the patent was obtained by him, he should convey to Stringham a certain portion of the surface grounds of the claim, including the strip of ground here in dispute. On the same day and pursuant to the agreement, Stringham canceled and released his filing and entry theretofore made by him in the land office. Treweek obtained his patent in June, 1889, and in September of that year he conveyed to Stringham the surface ground of a portion of the claim in accordance with the agreement. In June, 1906, Stringham conveyed to Mary J. Stringham. The plaintiff, just when is not found, by deeds of conveyance acquired from the Bingham Canyon and Camp Floyd Railroad Company all its right, title, and interest in and to the railroad, including its right of way and the lands in dispute. Both by the pleadings and findings it is made to appear that plaintiff's predecessor, by deeds of conveyance from Curtis and Stringham, acquired a right of way to a portion of the strip of ground in dispute, twelve and one-half feet on each side of the center of the railroad track. Upon these findings the trial court held: "That the said act of Congress, approved March 3, 1875, applies only to railroads which may thereafter be built, and does not apply to railroads already built and in operation at the time of its passage, and therefore the Bingham Canyon & Camp Floyd Railroad Company acquired no right, title, or interest in and to the premises in question under that act, or under the various proceedings taken by it in order to acquire the benefits which it confers. That the Bingham Canyon & Camp Floyd Railroad Company acquired no right, title, or interest in or to the premises in question under the said act of Congress approved July 26, 1866." The court further held that the title acquired by Treweek was the first title acquired to the premises in question from the United States, and that by virtue of the deed of conveyance from him to George Stringham, and from George Stringham to Mary J. Stringham, she was the rightful owner of the ground in dispute, except the twelve and one-half feet on each side of the center of the track. Judgment was thereupon entered dismissing plaintiff's complaint for want of equity except as to the twelve and one-half feet. From this judgment the plaintiff has prosecuted this appeal on the judgment roll without a bill of exceptions.

It is contended that the decisive questions on the appeal are: (1) Were the lands in question, and upon and across which plaintiff's predecessor constructed its road, public lands when it filed its articles of incorporation with the Secretary of the Interior, and its profile and map with the register of the district land office, and undertook to avail itself of the benefits of the act? (2) Does the act of Congress approved March 3, 1875, apply only to railroads constructed and operated after the act was passed, or does it also apply to railroads which were constructed and in operation before the act was passed? When the respondents' predecessors, Dorr P. Curtis and George Stringham, settled upon the lands in 1870, the lands were unsurveyed public lands. Under the pre-emption laws of the United States then in force, pre-emption claimants were required to file declaratory statements within three months from the date of the receipt at the district land office of the approved plat of the township embracing such pre-emption settlements. The lands settled upon by these claimants were surveyed in May, 1873. The survey was approved in May, 1874. The township plat of the survey was filed in the district land office on the 1st day of August, 1874. Curtis filed no declaratory statement, and made no entry in the land office. He sold his possessory rights to George Stringham in 1875. Stringham filed no declaratory statement, and made no entry in the land office until the 12th day of June, 1883. These claimants failing to assert their rights by the filing of a declaratory statement, or by making an entry as pre-emptors within the prescribed time after the receipt at the district land office of the township plat, acquired no prior rights...