United States v. California Land Co
Decision Date | 06 March 1893 |
Docket Number | No. 1,073,1,073 |
Citation | 148 U.S. 31,37 L.Ed. 354,13 S.Ct. 458 |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. CALIFORNIA & O. LAND CO |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Statement by Mr. Justice BREWER:
On July 2, 1864, congress passed an act granting lands to the state of Oregon to aid in the construction of a military road from Eugene City to the eastern boundary of the state.13 St.p. 355.A proviso to the first and granting section was 'that the lands hereby granted shall be ex- clusively applied in the construction of said road, and shall be disposed of only as the work progresses; and the same shall be applied to no other purpose whatever.'The third and fourth sections read:
On October 24, 1864, the legislature of Oregon in its turn granted these lands to the Oregon Central Military Road Company, for the purpose of aiding it in constructing the road.LawsOr.1864, p. 36.On June 18, 1874, congress enacted:
'Whereas, certain lands have heretofore, by acts of congress, been granted to the state of Oregon to aid in the construction of certain military wagon roads in said state, and there exists no law providing for the issuing of formal patents for said lands: Therefore,
'Be it enacted by the senate and house of representatives of the United States of America in congress assembled, that in all cases when the roads in aid of the construction of which said lands were granted are shown by the certificate of the governor of the state of Oregon, as in said acts provided, to have been constructed and completed, patents for said lands shall issue in due form to the state of Oregon as fast as the same shall, under said grants, be selected and certified, unless the state of Oregon shall be public act have transferred its interests in said lands to any corporation or corporations, in which case the patents shall issue from the general land office to such corporation or corporations upon their payment of the necessary expenses thereof: provided, that this shall not be construed to revive any land grant already expired, nor to create any new rights of any kind except to provide for issuing patents for lands to which the state is already entitled.'18 St.p. 80.
On March 2, 1889, congress passed an act (25 St.p. 850) entitled 'An act providing in certain cases for the forfeiture of wagon road grants in the state of Oregon,' which commenced with this recital:
'Whereas, the United States have heretofore made various grants of public lands to aid in the construction of different wagon roads in the state of Oregon, and upon the condition that such roads should be completed within prescribed times; and whereas, said grants were transferred by said state to sundry corporations, who were authorized by the state to construct such wagon roads, and to receive therefor the grants of lands thus made; and whereas, the department of the interior certified portions of said lands to the state of Oregon upon the theory that said roads had been completed as required by the granting acts of congress, and upon the certificate of the governor of the state of Oregon as to such completion; and whereas, the legislature of the state of Oregon has memorialized congress, and therein alleged that certain of said wagon roads, in whole or in part, were not so completed, and that to the extent of the lands coterminous with unconstructed portions the certifications thereof by the department of the interior were unauthorized and illegal: Therefore,'—and directed the attorney general of the United States within six months to institute suits in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Oregon against all firms, persons, or corporations claiming to own or have an interest in lands granted to the state of Oregon by certain enumerated acts of congress,—among others, the act above referred to, of July 2, 1864,—
In pursuance of this act, on August 30, 1889, a bill was filed in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Oregon against the Oregon Central Military Road Company, the California & Oregon Land Company, and certain named individuals.The bill, it may be said in a general way, charged that the road was not in fact constructed; that certificates of construction were fraudulently obtained from the governors of the state; that, in pursuance of such false certifications, a large number of tracts had been certified or patented to the state of Oregon for the benefit of the Oregon Central Military Road Company; that thereafter these lands were conveyed to certain of the individuals named as defendants, and by them finally to the California & Oregon Land Company; and, further, that these parties received the deeds with full knowledge of the fact that the road was not constructed as required by the act, and that the certificates were false, and fraudulently obtained.To this bill, on October 24, 1889, the California & Oregon Land Company filed two pleas and an answer in support thereof.The case was set down for hearing on the pleas, and on February 18, 1896, they were sustained, and the bill dismissed.From such decree of dismissal the United States appealed to this court.On May 25, 1891, the decision of the circuit court was reversed, (140 U. S. 599, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 988,) and the case remanded for further proceedings.The opinion of this court was announced by Mr. Justice Blatchford, and in that opinion will be found a full history of all the matters affecting the litigation up to that time.The conclusion reached was that the circuit court erred in not permitting the United States to reply to the pleas, and in dismissing the bill absolutely.After the mandate had been filed in the circuit court, issue was joined on the pleas, testimony taken, and on December 7, 1891, a decree was again entered sustaining the second plea and dismissing the bill of complaint, as to the defendant, the California & Oregon Land Company.From this decree an appeal was taken to the circuit court of appeals, by which court, on March 10, 1892, that decree was affirmed, (7 U. S. App. 128, 2 C. C. A. 419, 51 Fed. Rep. 629,) and from this decree of affirmance the United States appeal to this court.
Asst. Atty. Gen. Parker, for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 35-37 intentionally omitted]John F. Dillon, A. T. Britton, and A. B. Browne, for California & Oregon Land Co.
Jas. K. Kelly, for Dalles Military Road Co.
Mr. Justice BREWER, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.
The burden of complaint in this case is that the circuit court erred in restricting the scope of the inquiry.The government sought to introduce testimony to show that the road was never in fact constructed, as required by the act of congress; and also that the certificates of the governors, made as provided by section 4 of the cat of 1864, were obtained by fraud and misrepresentation, as averred in the bill.But all of this testimony was excluded, and the inquiry limited to the single question whether the land company was a bona find purchaser.
The first plea of the land company recited the fact that three several certificates had been issued by governors of the state of Oregon, to the effect that the road had been completed as required by the act of congress, and added 'that each of said several certificates was made honestly and in good faith, and without any fraudulent intent or procurement or false representation by any person whomsoever.'But upon application to the circuit court this clause in the plea was stricken out, leaving it to contain simply an averment of the certificates of the governors; and, as these had been set out at length in the bill, there was no issue of fact presented by this plea.The other plea was that the land company was a purchaser in good faith, and to that question, as heretofore stated, the inquiry was restricted.
There was no...
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
United States v. Oregon & C.R. Co.
... ... under the act of 1866 ... '(2) ... The controlling purpose of Congress in making the land ... grants, here and by the Union Pacific act, as expressly ... stated in each act, is the same; hence here, as there, any ... policy of Congress ... should be premised that the theory of the bill is not that ... the grants have not been fully earned so as to entitle the ... Oregon & California Railroad to have the patents issue, but ... that, being earned, and patents in large measure having ... issued, the company has failed to comply ... ...
-
State of Iowa v. Carr
... ... CARR et al. HANNAN v. SAME. Nos. 2,936, 2,937. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. October 20, 1911 ... [191 F ... the land forms ... The ... title to land which, by natural and gradual ... Co., 89 ... Mich. 481, 51 N.W. 103, 106; United States v. California ... & Oregon Land Co., 148 U.S. 31, 41, 13 Sup.Ct. 458, 37 ... L.Ed ... ...
-
United States v. Winona & St. P.R. Co., 564.
... ... Thomas ... Wilson (Lloyd W. Bowers, on the brief), for appellees Winona ... & St. P.R. Co. and Minnesota Land & Investment Co ... J. A ... Tawney and H. M. Lamberton, for appellee Winona & st. P. Land ... Before ... CALDWELL, SANBORN, ... Mexican grants. An appeal was allowed by that act from the ... decision of the commission to the district court of ... California, and ... [67 F. 958] ... from the decision of that court to the supreme court of the ... United States. The land patented to the Central Pacific ... ...
-
Elliott v. Thompson
... ... public lands as passing from the United States ... 4 ... Decisions by the Secretary of the Interior ... had never been listed with the land office, and that the ... secretary had no authority to issue a patent or ... Standard ... Oil Co. of California v. United States, 107 F.2d 402; ... Knight v. United Land Association, ... ...