St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co. v. St. Paul & N.P.R. Co., 455

Decision Date06 May 1895
Docket Number456.,455
Citation68 F. 2
PartiesST. 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.
CourtU.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: 'When the governor of said state shall certify to the secretary of the interior that any section of ten consecutive miles of said road is completed in a good, substantial, and workmanlike manner, as a first-class railroad, and the said secretary shall be satisfied that said state has complied in good faith with this requirement, the said secretary of the interior shall issue to the said state patents for all the lands granted and selected as aforesaid, not exceeding ten sections per mile, situated opposite to and within a limit of twenty miles of the line of said section of road thus completed, extending along the whole length of said completed section of ten miles of road, and no further. And when the governor of said state shall certify to the secretary of the interior, and the secretary shall be satisfied that another section of said road, ten consecutive miles in extent, connecting with the preceding section or with some other first-class railroad, which may be at the time in successful operation, is completed as aforesaid, the said secretary of the interior shall issue to the said state patents for all the lands granted and situated opposite to and within the limit of twenty miles of the line of said completed section of road or roads, and extending the length of said section, and no further, not exceeding ten sections of land per mile for all that part of said road thus completed under the provisions of this act and the act to which this is an amendment, and so, from time to time, until said roads and branches are completed. And when the governor of said state shall so certify, and the secretary of the interior shall be satisfied that the whole of any one of said roads and branches is completed in a good, substantial, and workmanlike manner, as a first-class railroad, the said secretary of the interior shall issue to the said state patents to all the remaining lands granted for and on account of said completed road and branches in this act, situated within the said limits of twenty miles from the line thereof, throughout the entire length of said road and branches. * * * ' 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: 'Whenever said company shall actually complete that portion of the road between St. Paul and St. Anthony, so that regular trains of cars are running thereon, and not before, the governor shall certify the same to the secretary of the interior, and thereupon the title to one hundred and twenty sections of land shall vest in said company. And when twenty continuous miles of said road shall be completed, and regular trains running thereon, the title to a further quantity of one hundred and twenty sections of land shall vest in said company. And whenever said company shall actually complete twenty continuous miles of said road from Minneapolis westwardly, so as to admit of the running of regular trains of cars on the same, the governor shall certify the same to the secretary of the interior, and thereupon a further quantity of one hundred and twenty sections of said lands shall vest in said company; and so on, as often as any further twenty continuous miles of said road shall be completed so as to admit of the regular running of trains of cars thereon, the governor shall in like manner certify the same to the secretary of the interior, and a further quantity of one hundred and twenty sections of said land shall vest in said company; and it shall be the duty of the governor, whenever said road shall be completed between St. Paul and St. Anthony, in his official capacity, and on behalf of the state, to convey to said company one hundred and twenty sections of land; and whenever any further twenty continuous miles of said...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • SLAZENGERS v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA)
    • 8 Octubre 1957
    ...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
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA)
    • 8 Octubre 1957
    ...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
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas
    • 8 Octubre 1904
    ... ... wholly destitute of merit'); St. Paul, etc., Railway ... Company v. St. Paul & N.P. Railroad Company, 68 F. 2, ... ...
  • Jefferson v. Gypsy Oil Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 8 Junio 1928
    ...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 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT