Sioux City Land Co v. Griffey

• Decision Date: 01 February 1892
• Docket Number: TOWN-LOT
• Parties: SIOUX CITY & I. F.& LAND CO. v. GRIFFEY et al
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

143 U.S. 32

12 S.Ct. 362

36 L.Ed. 64

SIOUX CITY & I. F. TOWN-LOT & LAND CO. v. GRIFFEY et al.

February 1, 1892.

On May 15, 1856, congress passed an act granting lands to the state of Iowa to aid in the construction of certain railroads. 11 St. p. 9. The grant was a grant in praesenti, and of alternate sections, with the familiar provision: 'But in case it shall appear that the United States have, when the lines or routes of said roads are definitely fixed, sold any sections, or any parts thereof, granted as aforesaid, or that the right of pre-emption has attached to the same, then it shall be lawful for any agent or agents, to be appointed by the governor of said state, to select, subject to the approval of the secretary of the interior, from the lands of the United States nearest to the tiers of sections above specified, so much land, in alternate sections, or parts of sections, as shall be equal to such lands as the United States have sold or otherwise appropriated, or to which the rights of pre-emption have attached as aforesaid.'

By an act of the general assembly of Iowa, of date July 14, 1856, the Dubugue & Pacific Railway Company was made one of the beneficiaries of this grant. By section 6 it was provided: 'The lines and routes of the several roads above described shall be definitely fixed and located on or before the first day of April next after the passage of this act, and maps or plats showing such lines or routes shall be filed in the office of the governor of the state of Iowa, and also in the office of the secretary of the state of Iowa. It shall be the duty of the governor, after affixing his official signature, to file such map in the department having the control of the public lands in Washington, such location to be considered final only so far as to fix the limits and boundary in which said lands may be selected.' The map of the definite location thus provided for was not received by the officers of the state until after September 27, 1856, and was filed at the general land-office in Washington on October 13, 1856. Prior, however, to the 14th day of July, and the passage of the act making it the beneficiary of the congressional grant, the Dubuque & Pacific Railroad Company had commenced the survey of its line, and had surveyed and staked out a line upon the surface of the ground along the land in controversy, which, by such survey, was within the limits of the grant. On the 19th of July, 1856, Griffey entered upon this land, filed his declaratory statement, and on the 5th of September located it with a military bounty land-warrant, and received his certificate of location.

Wm. l. Joy and W. C. Goudy, for plaintiff in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 34-38 intentionally omitted] S. S. Burdett and O. C. Treadway, for defendants in error.

Mr. Justice BREWER delivered the opinion of the court.

The first and principal question is at what time the title of the railroad company attached,—whether at the time the map of definite location was filed in the general ladn-office at Washington, or when, prior thereto, its line was surveyed and staked out on the surface of the ground. While the question, in this precise form, has never been before this court, yet the question as to the time at which the title attaches, under grants similar to this, has been often presented, and the uniform ruling has been that it attaches at the time of the filing of the map of definite location. Grinnell v. Railroad Co., 103 U. S. 739; Van Wyck v. Knevals, 106 U. S. 360, 366, 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 336; Railway Co. v. Dunmeyer, 113 U. S. 629, 634, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 566; Waldan v. Knevals, 114 U. S. 373, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 898; U. S. v. Railway Co., 141 U. S. 358, 375, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 13.

In Van Wyck v. Knevals, where the question arose between Knevals, the grantee of the railroad company, and Van Wyck, who had entered the lands at the local land-office after the filing of the map of definite location with the land department, but before notice thereof had been received at such local land-office, this court said: 'The route must be considered as 'definitely fixed' when it has ceased to be the subject of change at the volition of the company. Until the map is filed with the secretary of the interior, the company is at liberty to adopt such a route as it may deem best, after an examination of the ground has disclosed the feasibility and advantages of different lines. But when a route is adopted by the company, and a map designating it is filed with the...