Sullivan v. Damon

• Decision Date: 28 January 1913
• Docket Number: 195,Equity.
• Parties: SULLIVAN v. DAMON et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

202 F. 285

SULLIVAN v. DAMON et al.

No. 195, Equity.

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Western Division.

January 28, 1913

Sullivan & Griffin, Henderson & Fribourg, and Alfred Pizey, all of Sioux City, Iowa, for complainant.

John E Stryker, of St. Paul, Minn., for defendants.

REED District Judge.

This suit is by the complainant to require the defendants, as the widow and heirs at law of M. H. Damon, deceased, to convey to him the legal title to certain land in O'Brien county this state, which it is alleged the defendants hold in trust for the complainant. The land is a part of that patented by the United States to the state of Iowa under the act of Congress approved May 12, 1864 (Act May 12, 1864, c. 84, 13 Stat. 72), for the benefit of the Sioux City & St. Paul Railroad Company, but which was never conveyed by the state to that company for the reasons stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in Sioux City & St Paul Railroad Company v. United States, 159 U.S. 349, 16 Sup.Ct. 17, 40 L.Ed. 177. The complainant claims the land under the homestead laws of the United States, and the defendants under a purchase thereof by their ancestor, M. H Damon, in June, 1888, for its then fair value, from the Sioux City & St. Paul Railroad Company, and a patent to him from the United States under the act of Congress above mentioned, pursuant to that purchase, and section 4 of chapter 376 of an act approved March 3, 1887 (24 Stat. 557 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1596)), commonly known as the 'Adjustment Act' of Congress.

The rights of claimants under the homestead laws of the United States to parts of this land as against purchasers thereof from the railroad company were considered by this court in Harvey v. Holles (C.C.) 160 F. 531, and other cases following that, including the case of Lyle v. Patterson (C.C.) 160 F. 545, and Dockendorf v. Bassett (C.C.) 160 F. 543. The two cases last named were affirmed by the Court of Appeals for this circuit, at 176 F. 909, 100 C.C.A. 379, and 176 F. 917, 100 C.C.A. 387, respectively.

There was a contest between the complainant and M. H. Damon before the Land Department of the United States for the land in question, which was awarded to Damon by the local land office, and its decision was affirmed by the Commissioner of the General Land Office, and that in turn by the Secretary of the Interior, upon successive appeals of the complainant; and a patent was issued to Damon for the land pursuant to such decisions February 27, 1901. In the hearing before the local land office that tribunal found the facts to be as follows:

'The evidence submitted on behalf of M. H. Damon shows that he is a resident of the state of Minnesota; that he formerly resided in Sioux City, Iowa, and owned land adjoining the land in controversy; that in 1888, on the 18th day of June, he entered into an agreement with the Sioux City & St. Paul Railroad Company to purchase the S.W. 1/4 of N.E. 1/4 and N.W. 1/4 S.E. 1/4, section 7, township 97, range 42, at the agreed price of $1,200, paying $80 on the date the contract was entered into, and on July 5, 1889, he paid $89.60, and on November 7, 1889, he paid $115.50. Suit being brought by the United States against the aforesaid railroad company, involving the title to this land, further payments were not required by the railroad company during the pendency of this suit. He has been in continuous and undisputed possession of said land from the date of his purchase until the decision of Supreme Court of the United States, October 21, 1895. After that the homestead claimant, Sullivan, * * * made several attempts to take possession of the land. Several years before the claimant, Damon, entered into the contract to purchase the land, he had bought three 40's of land, the title of which came through the Sioux City Railroad Company. He testifies that at the time he entered into the contract involving this case he believed the land was in the same condition as that of the three 40's he had bought prior thereto. He testified in

...