State of Minnesota v. Lane
| Decision Date | 03 June 1918 |
| Docket Number | No. 20,20 |
| Citation | 62 L.Ed. 1098,247 U.S. 243,38 S.Ct. 508 |
| Parties | STATE OF MINNESOTA v. LANE, Secretary of Interior, et al. Original |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Charles R. Pierce, of Washington, D. C., and Lyndon A. Smith and Clifford L. Hilton, both of St. Paul, Minn., for complainant.
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Kearful, for defendants.
This bill of complaint is filed by the state of Minnesota to quiet title to certain lands in that state, and to enjoin the Secretary of the Interior and the Commissioner of the General Land Office from issuing patents for the lands to the Immigration Land Company, a corporation of the state of Minnesota. The government filed a motion to dismiss the bill upon the following grounds:
'1. The court is without jurisdiction to entertain this suit because it is in substance and effect against the United States, which has not consented to be sued or waived its immunity from suit.
'2. There is a defect of parties defendant which cannot be cured without depriving the court of jurisdiction.
'3. The relief prayed for would be an invasion of the lawful jurisdiction of the defendants as officers of the Land Department.
From the allegations of the bill it appears that the state claims title to the lands under Act of August 3, 1892, c. 362, 27 Stat. 347.1
The Immigration Land Company claims title under section 5 of the Act of March 3, 1887, c. 376, 24 Stat. 556,2 relat- ing to the adjustment of land grants to railroad companies.
The last-named statute provides that where the railroad company shall have sold to citizens of the United States as a part of its grant lands not conveyed to or for the use of the company, said lands being the numbered sections prescribed in the grant, and being coterminous with the constructive parts of the road, and where the lands so sold are for any reason excepted from the operation of the grant, it shall be lawful for a bona fide purchaser thereof from said company, to make payment to the United States for the lands at the ordinary government price for like lands, and thereupon patents shall issue to the bona fide purchaser, his heirs or assigns.
Under this act, on February 9, 1907, the Land Company made application in the Land Department to purchase the land, claiming to be the assignee of a bona fide purchaser of the lands from the railroad company. The state of Minnesota protested against the issuance of a patent to the Immigration Land Company, and claimed the land under the act of August 3, 1892, under which undisposed-of lands of the United States, situated in certain sections and townships, were granted to the state for a public park. The act of 1892 also provides that it shall not in any manner interfere with, supersede, suspend, modify or annul the vested right of any person, company, or corporation in respect to any of the land existing at the date of the passage of the act.
A hearing was had before the commissioner of the General Land Office upon the issue made between the state of Minnesota and the Immigration Land Company, wherein the Commissioner held:
'These tracts of land are within the second indemnity limits of the grant to the Northern Pacific Railroad Company, under act of July 2, 1864 (13 Stat. 365), as amended by joint resolution of May 31, 1870 (16 Stat. 378). On October 15, 1883, said railway company selected all of the above described tracts of land per list No. 12, Crookston rearranged list No. 12, filed April 19, 1893. he bases given in support of the selections covered by such rearranged list were lands claimed to have been excepted from the company's grant of July 2, 1864, supra, by reason of the reservation subsisting at the date thereof on account of the grant made by the act of May 5, 1864 (13 Stat. 64), to aid in the construction of the Lake Superior & Mississippi Railroad.
'Said list of selections No. 12 was canceled as to these and other tracts of land by letter 'F' of March 20, 1907, upon authority of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of the Northern Lumber Co. v. O'Brien, 204 U. S. 190, 27 Sup. Ct. 249, 51 L. Ed. 438, but the cancellation was suspended by the order of the Secretary of the Interior on April 1, 1907, and remained in that status until October 30, 1909, when said list of selections No. 12 was canceled as to these and other tracts of land.
* * *
'The lands above described, with others were sold and conveyed by the Northern Pacific Railway Company by warranty deed for a valuable consideration, January 14, 1891, to Frederick Weyerhaeuser, Peter Musser and M. G. Norton, whose title was afterwards conveyed by certain mesne conveyances to the applicant Immigration Land Company as set forth in its application to purchase dated February 2, 1907, and filed in your office February 9, 1907.'
Of the issues involved the Commissioner said:
'The attorneys on behalf of the state of Minnesota contend that the lands herein involved, which are situated within the limits of the Itasca State Park, were granted to the state by act of August 3, 1892 (27 Stat. 347), and it is urged on the part of the state that the grant took effect immediately, the land being 'undisposed of' on that date, and that the claim asserted by the Immigration Land Company does not have the dignity of the 'vested right,' protected in section 2 of said act.
'On behalf of the Immigration Land Company it is contended that these lands were segregated from the mass of public lands by Crookston indemnity list of selections No. 12, made October 15, 1883, which was not canceled from the records until October 30, 1909; that the sale of the lands covered by cash entry No. 05008, in the name of the Immigration Land Company, by said railway company on January 14, 1891, was bona fide and for a valuable consideration, and it is urged that the Immigration Land Company should have its purchase of said lands protected under section 5 of the act of March 3, 1887 (24 Stat. 556), and receive patent therefor; the attorneys for the Land Company contending that the lands involved were not 'undisposed of lands' on August 3, 1892, the date of the grant to the state.'
After an opinion, in which the issues were considered, the Commissioner reached the conclusion.
'Accordingly, it is held that under section 5 of the act of March 3, 1887, the rights of the Immigration Land Company under the facts and laws above cited are superior to the claim of the state under the act of August 3, 1892, that cash entry 05008 by said Immigration Land Company should remain intact.
'The protest of the state is hereby dismissed subject to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Continental Development Corp.
... ... 1083.) Later cases have reiterated the distinction. (See, e.g., Pierpont Inn, Inc. v. State" of California (1969) 70 Cal.2d 282, 74 Cal.Rptr. 521, 449 P.2d 737 (Pierpont Inn ).) ... \xC2" ... ...
-
Dimitry v. Jones
... ... 1 ... CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. Taxation. State may adopt any method of ... assessing land for taxes so that reasonable notice and due ... been illegal under the rule announced by the United States ... Supreme Court in Lane, Secretary of Interior, v ... Darlington, 249 U.S. , 63 L.Ed. 629 ... [149 ... Register (Littlefield v ... Richards), 9 Wall, 575, 578, 19 L.Ed. 681, 682; ... Minnesota v. Land, 247 U.S. 243, 250, 62 L.Ed. 1098, ... 1101; U. S. v. State Investment Co., 68 L.Ed. 639 ... ...
-
Red Canyon Sheep Co. v. Ickes, 6991.
...lease. The appellees rely upon Brown v. Hitchcock, 173 U.S. 473, 19 S.Ct. 485, 43 L.Ed. 772 (1899), and State of Minnesota v. Lane, 247 U.S. 243, 38 S.Ct. 508, 62 L.Ed. 1098 (1918), for the proposition that the courts will not interfere until the administrative process has ended with the is......
-
Work v. State of Louisiana
...supra, and New Mexico v. Lane, 243 U. S. 52, 37 S. Ct. 348, 61 L. Ed. 588, nor one to quiet its title, as in Minnesota v. Lane, 247 U. S. 243, 38 S. Ct. 508, 62 L. Ed. 1098. The bill does not seek an adjudication that the lands were swamp and overflowed lands or to restrain the Secretary fr......