St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co. v. St. Paul & N.P.R. Co., 455
Decision Date | 06 May 1895 |
Docket Number | 456.,455 |
Citation | 68 F. 2 |
Parties | ST. PAUL, M. & M. RY. CO. et al. v. ST. PAUL & N.P.R. CO. ST. PAUL & N.P.R. CO. v. ST. PAUL, M. & M. RY. CO. et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
This was a bill which was filed by the St. Paul & Northern Pacific Railroad Company, hereafter termed the plaintiff company against the St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Company et al., to establish its title to a large body of land in the state of Minnesota, and to annul certain deeds which were executed by the governor of that state in the years 1866 and 1871, on the ground that they operated as a cloud on the plaintiff company's title. The plaintiff also prayed that the defendant company might be required to account for and to pay over to it all such sums as it had realized from sales made of any of the lands embraced in the aforesaid deeds. The lands in controversy are a part of the lands granted by the United States, on March 3, 1857, to the then territory of Minnesota, to aid in the construction of a main line of railroad from Stillwater, on the eastern boundary of the territory, via St. Paul and St. Anthony, to a point on the western boundary of the territory between the foot of Big Stone lake and the mouth of the Sioux Wood river, afterwards fixed at Breckenridge, with a branch from St. Anthony, via Anoka, St. Cloud, and Crow Wing, to St. Vincent, in the northwestern portion of the territory.
A general statement of the facts out of which the controversy arises is as follows: Both parties derive title to the lands in dispute under the aforesaid grant of March 3, 1857 (11 Stat. 195, c. 99). That act granted to the territory of Minnesota, in aid of building the aforesaid main and branch lines of railroad, 'every alternate section of land designated by odd numbers, for six sections in width on each side of each of said roads and branches,' with the right to select land, in alternate sections or parts of sections lying within 15 miles of said main and branch lines, to make up for any deficiency in the grant caused by sales of land or by the filing of pre-emption claims before the definite location of the road. The act further provided 'that the lands hereby granted for and on account of said roads and branches, severally, shall be exclusively applied in the construction of that road for an on account of which such lands are hereby granted, and shall be disposed of only as the work progresses; * * * that the said lands hereby granted to the said territory or future state shall be subject to the future disposal of the legislature thereof for the purposes herein expressed and no other;' and that they should be disposed of 'by said territory or future state only in the manner following, that is to say: that a quantity of land not exceeding one hundred and twenty sections for each of said roads and branches, and included within a continuous length of twenty miles of each of said roads and branches, may be sold; and when the governor of said territory or future state shall certify to the secretary of the interior that any twenty continuous miles of any of said roads or branches is completed, then another quantity of land hereby granted, not to exceed one hundred and twenty sections for each of said roads and branches having twenty continuous miles completed as aforesaid, and included within a continuous length of twenty miles of each of such roads or branches, may be sold; and so from time to time until said roads and branches are completed. * * * ' By an act of congress approved March 3, 1865 (13 Stat. 526, c. 105), the aforesaid grant was increased to 10 sections per mile, and the indemnity limits were extended to 20 miles from said lines of road. As to the mode of disposing of the land, the act of March 3, 1865, provided as follows: An act of * * * 'congress approved July 13, 1866 (14 Stat. 97, c. 183), relative to the aforesaid grant, provided 'that all the lands heretofore granted to the territory and state of Minnesota to aid in the construction of railroads, shall be certified to said state by the secretary of the interior, from time to time, whenever any of said roads shall be definitely located, and shall be disposed of by said state in the manner and upon the conditions provided in the particular act granting the same, as modified by the provisions of this act; * * * that the lands granted by any act of congress to the state of Minnesota, to aid in the construction of railroads in said state, specifically, lying in place, on any division of ten miles of road, shall not be disposed of until the road shall be completed through and coterminous with the same; provided, however, that this provision shall not extend to any lands authorized to be taken to make up deficiencies.'
Turning to state legislation with reference to the aforesaid grant and to other acts done which affect the questions at issue, the following may be mentioned as the most material: The grant made by the act of March 3, 1857, supra, was conferred by the territorial legislature on the Minnesota & Pacific Railroad Company, which had been incorporated to construct the main and branch lines of railroad aforesaid, but, that company having failed to discharge its obligations, the grant became revested in the state of Minnesota on June 23, 1860, by proper proceedings taken that are not challenged. The state thereafter, on March 10, 1862, incorporated the St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Company to construct said uncompleted lines of road, and, for the purpose of aiding it in so doing, conferred upon it 'all the interest of the state, present and prospective, in and to any and all the lands granted by congress to the territory of Minnesota,' by the act of March 3, 1857, for the purpose of aiding in the construction of said lines of road, 'together with all and singular the rights, privileges and immunities conferred and intended to be conferred by said act of congress. ' The act last aforesaid, creating the St. Paul & Pacific Railroad Company, and conferring upon it the rights and privileges aforesaid, contained the following provision as to the conveyance of said lands by the state: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
SLAZENGERS v. United States
...Customs Court acquired jurisdiction. In re Summers, 325 U.S. 561, 566, 567, 65 S.Ct. 1307, 89 L.Ed. 1795; St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co. v. St. Paul & N. P. R. Co., 8 Cir., 68 F. 2, 14; Erickson v. United States, 264 U.S. 246, 249, 44 S.Ct. 310, 68 L.Ed. 661; Mosher v. City of Phoenix, 287 U. S.......
-
Slazengers, Inc. v. United States
...a real controversy over which the Customs Court acquired jurisdiction. In re Summers, 325 U. S. 561, 566, 567; St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co. v. St. Paul & N. P. R. Co., 68 F. 2, 14; Erickson v. United States, 264 U. S. 246, 249; Mosher v. City of Phoenix, 287 U. S. 29, 30; Binderup v. Pathe Exc......
-
St. Louis, I.M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Davis
... ... wholly destitute of merit'); St. Paul, etc., Railway ... Company v. St. Paul & N.P. Railroad Company, 68 F. 2, ... ...
-
Jefferson v. Gypsy Oil Co.
...matters that could not independently perhaps have been presented in that court is permissible. As said in St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co. v. St. Paul & N. P. R. Co. (C. C. A.) 68 F. 2, 10: "If, on the face of the complaint or declaration, the case is one which the court has the power to hear and ......