Southern Minnesota Ry. Extension Co. v. St. Paul & S. C. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 01 May 1893
• Docket Number: 203.
• Citation: 55 F. 690
• Parties: SOUTHERN MINNESOTA RAILWAY EXTENSION CO. v. ST. PAUL & S.C.R. CO. et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

55 F. 690

SOUTHERN MINNESOTA RAILWAY EXTENSION CO. v. ST. PAUL & S.C.R. CO. et al.

No. 203.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

May 1, 1893

Statement by THAYER, District Judge:

On the 29th day of May, 1892, the appellant filed its amended bill of complaint in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Minnesota to obtain an adjudication that the appellee had wrongfully acquired the legal title to certain lands which of right belonged to the appellant, and to divest the appellees of the title so obtained, and to compel them to account for the proceeds of all lands thus wrongfully acquired which had been sold to innocent purchasers previous to the filing of the bill. Both of the parties to the suit claimed the lands under certain acts of congress granting lands to the state of Minnesota to aid in the construction of railroads within that state. The appellant is a Minnesota corporation, and is the successor in interest of the Southern Minnesota Railroad Company. The title preferred by the appellant to the lands in controversy is as follows: First. An act passed by the legislature of the state of Minnesota on March 4, 1864, creating the Southern Minnesota Railroad Company, and pledging to it all such lands as congress might thereafter grant to the state in aid of building the railroad which the last-mentioned company was authorized to construct. Edgerton, R.R. Laws Min. 478-492. Second. An act of congress approved July 7, 1866, (14 Stat. 87,) granting to the state of Minnesota five alternate sections of land per mile on each side of the road to aid in building a railroad from Houston in Houston county, Minn., westwardly through certain counties of the state to the western boundary thereof, which was the line of road, as it is claimed, that the Southern Minnesota Railroad Company was authorized to build. Third. An act of the legislature of the state of Minnesota, approved February 25, 1867, accepting the grant last aforesaid, and conferring the same upon the Southern Minnesota Railroad Company. Edgerton, R.R. Laws, 497. Fourth. The filing of maps of definite location, and the subsequent completion by the appellant of the railroad in question from Houston to the western boundary of the state.

The appellees are the successors in interest of a corporation styled the Minnesota Valley Railroad Company. The title which they prefer to the lands in controversy is as follows: First. An act of the legislature of the state of Minnesota creating the Minnesota Valley Railroad Company, and conferring upon it all the rights of the state of Minnesota in and to certain public lands theretofore granted by the United States to the territory of Minnesota, to aid in building a railroad across the then territory, from St. Paul and St. Anthony southwesterly to the Iowa state line, in the direction of the mouth of the Big Sioux river. Edgerton, R.R. Laws Minn. 486. Second. The act of congress of March 3, 1857, last referred to, (11 Stat. 195,) granting to the territory every alternate section of land designated by odd numbers, for six sections in width, on each side of the projected line. Third. Another act of congress, approved May 12, 1864, (13 Stat. 72, 74 Sec. 7,) granting to the state of Minnesota four additional sections of land per mile in aid of building the aforesaid railroad from St. Paul and St. Anthony to the Iowa line. Fourth. The filing of maps of definite location, and the completion of the railroad in question, by the Minnesota Valley Railroad Company and its successors in interest.

The appellees finished the construction of the road running in a southwesterly direction across the state from St. Paul and St. Anthony, which the Minnesota Valley Railroad Company had been authorized to build, by June 1, 1872. The appellant's road from Houston to Winnebago City, a distance of 149 miles, was built and put in operation about January 1, 1871, but the remaining portion thereof, from Winnebago City to the western boundary of the state, a distance of 130 miles, was not completed until December 8 1879.

It was provided, in substance, in the act of congress of March 3, 1857, under which the appellees claim, that if the United States had sold, or if pre-emption rights had been attached to, any of the lands therein granted at the time the line of railroad therein referred to was definitely fixed, then other lands of the United States lying nearest to the tiers of sections in which the granted lands lay might be selected, in alternate sections and parts of sections, to make up for the deficiency caused by sales and pre-emptions, provided that the lands so selected lay within 15 miles of the line of the railroad, as the same might be located. The act of congress of May 12, 1864, which granted four additional sections per mile, further provided that the lands might be selected within 20 miles of the railroad in question.

The appellant's road, as laid out and constructed, crosses the appellees' road some distance west of Winnebago City, and for some distance east and west of the point of intersection of the two roads approach each other so nearly that the land grants interfere and overlap. The lands in controversy in this proceeding lie within the 10-mile or granted limits of the appellant's road. The appellant, therefore, claims that according to a well-established doctrine the act of congress of July 4, 1866, operated as a present grant of all of said lands to the state of Minnesota for its exclusive use and benefit. St. paul & S.C.R. Co. v. Winona & St. P.R. Co., 112 U.S. 720, 5 S.Ct. 334.

Said lands also lie within 20 miles of the appellees' road, but more than six miles therefrom. They are therefore outside of the appellees' granted limits as defined by the act of March 3, 1857, but are within their indemnity limits. On the completion of their road the appellees laid claim to the aforesaid lands as lands which they were entitled to to make up for deficiencies within their granted limits. The claim was conceded both by the general government and by the state of Minnesota. The lands were accordingly certified to the state, and were by the state patented to the appellees between August 22, 1867, and the year 1876. Notwithstanding the action of the general government and the state, no steps were taken by the Southern Minnesota Railroad Company, or its successor in interest, to enforce its alleged right of the lands in question until February 20, 1880. On the last-mentioned date a bill was filed by the appellant against the appellees in the district court of Nobles county, in the state of Minnesota, with a view of recovering a large portion of the same lands, as it is claimed, which form the subject-matter of the present controversy. The bill filed in the district court or Nobles county discloses the same title to the lands that the appellant then sought to recover, which is pleaded and relied upon in the case at bar. It also prayed for the same relief as to the lands then in litigation which is sought for in the present proceeding. The suit in the district court of Nobles county resulted in a decree in favor of the appellees on March 28, 1883, after a full hearing upon the merits, from which decree no appeal was taken by either party. Among other defenses urged in the present suit, the appellees plead the record and final decree in the suit formerly tried in the state court as a bar to the action. It should be further stated that a small portion of the lands sued for in the present case are situated in even numbered sections in township 105, ranges 41 and 42. Both parties lay claim to these lands under the provisions of an act of congress approved June 22, 1874, (18 Stat. 194,) which was enacted for the relief of actual settlers upon lands previously granted to railroad companies.

John W. Cary and Frank W. M. Cutcheon, (W. H. Norris, Charles E. Flandrau, and George E. Squires, on the brief,) for appellant.

George B. Young, for appellees.

Before SANBORN, Circuit Judge, and THAYER, District Judge.

THAYER District Judge, after stating the facts as above, .

It is urged that the plea of a former adjudication is not supported by the record of the suit formerly pending in the district court of Nobles county, Minn., for the reason that the record does not show what lands the appellant then sought to recover, or at least that it does not show that the lands then sued for are a portion of those now claimed. We think that this contention is untenable. The bill of complaint filed in the district court of Nobles county, contained among others, the following allegations, in substance: That, upon the filing of its map of definite location, and upon the completion of its road, the appellant became entitled, under the act of congress of July 4, 1866, and the act of the Minnesota legislature of February 25, 1867, to every alternate section of land designated by odd numbers, for 10 miles in width, on each side of its road, situated in ranges 32 to 45, both inclusive, and in townships 101 to 107, both inclusive, these being lands within its place limits; that it also became entitled to select, if necessary, all of the alternate sections designated by odd numbers within the ranges and townships aforesaid, which were more than 10 and less than 20 miles from its road, to make up for any deficiency within its granted or place limits; that it, in fact, required all of the lands within its deficiency limits to make up for losses within its granted limits; that it had applied to the secretary of the interior to certify to it all of the alternate sections of land aforesaid that were within its place limits and its indemnity limits, and that he had declined to so certify any of said lands because they had already been certified to the state of...