United States v. Southern Pac. R. Co.

Decision Date09 July 1902
Docket Number878.
Citation117 F. 544
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of California
PartiesUNITED STATES v. SOUTHER PAC. R. CO. et al.

The Attorney General and J. H. Call, Sp. Asst. U.S. Atty., for the United States.

Wm Singer, J., Wm. F. Herrin, T. M. Stewart, S. V. Landt, and R H. F. Variel, for defendants.

ROSS Circuit Judge.

By its bill the complainant sets up, among other things, the grants made by congress to the Atlantic & Pacific Railroad Company and to the defendant Southern Pacific Railroad Company by the act of July 27, 1866 (14 Stat. 292), and the grant to the defendant railroad company made by the joint resolution of June 28, 1870 (16 Stat. 382), and by the act of March 3, 1871 (16 Stat. 573), and the subsequent act of congress of July 6 1886 (24 Stat. 123), declaring forfeited the grant to the Atlantic & Pacific Company of July 27, 1866, and restoring to the public domain all of the odd-numbered sections within 30 miles on each side of its line of road between the eastern boundary of California and the Pacific Ocean at San Buena Ventura. It is alleged that all of the lands described in Exhibit A, annexed to and made part of the bill, situated in California, and consisting of separate and distinct tracts of the public lands, and aggregating 30,067.79 acres, fell within the 30-mile limits of the Atlantic & Pacific Railroad grant; that, regardless of the rights of the complainant, the defendant railroad company, as well as the other defendants, claim some title and interest in the lands described in Exhibit A, annexed to the bill, under some or all of the aforesaid acts of congress granting lands to the defendant railroad company, the precise nature and extent of which claims are unknown to the complainant, which it alleges are unfounded; that subsequent to the passage of the aforesaid act of March 3, 1871, and prior to the year 1896, patents were erroneously issued by the department of the interior to the defendant railroad company in due form, purporting to convey to that company the lands described in the said Exhibit A. It is alleged that the grants made to the defendant railroad company by section 18 of the act of July 27, 1866, by the joint resolution of June 28, 1870, by section 23 of the of March 3, 1871, were made upon the same terms, conditions, restrictions, and limitations as the grant to the Atlantic & Pacific Railroad Company by the act of July 27, 1866, by section 20 of which latter act congress expressly reserved the right to alter, amend, or repeal that act. The bill also sets up the acts of congress of March 3, 1887 (24 Stat. 556), February 12, 1896 (29 Stat. 6), and March 2, 1896 (29 Stat. 42). By section 1 of the act of March 3, 1887, the secretary of the interior was authorized and directed 'to immediately adjust, in accordance with the decisions of the supreme court, each of the railroad land grants made by congress to aid in the construction of railroads, and heretofore unadjusted. ' Sections 2 and 4 of the act are as follows:

'Sec. 2. That if it shall appear, upon the completion of such adjustments respectfully (ively), or sooner, that lands have been, from any cause, heretofore erroneously certified or patented, by the United States, to or for the use or benefit of any company claiming by, through, or under grant from the United States, to aid in the construction of a railroad, it shall be the duty of the secretary of the interior to thereupon demand from such company a relinquishment or reconveyance to the United States of all such lands, whether within granted or indemnity limits; and if such company shall neglect or fail to so reconvey such lands to the United States within ninety days after the aforesaid demand shall have been made, it shall thereupon be the duty of the attorney-general to commence and prosecute in the proper courts the necessary proceedings to cancel all patents, certification, or other evidence of the title heretofore issued for such lands, and to restore the title thereof to the United States.'

'Sec. 4. That as to all lands, except those mentioned in the foregoing section, which have been so erroneously certified or patented as aforesaid, and which have been sold by the grantee company to citizens of the United States or to persons so purchasing in good faith, his heirs or assigns, shall be entitled to the land so purchased, upon making proof of the fact of such purchase at the proper land office, within such time and under such rules as may be prescribed by the secretary of the interior, after the grants respectively shall have been adjusted; and patents of the United States shall issue therefor, and shall relate back to the date of the original certification or patenting, the secretary of the interior, on behalf of the United States, shall demand payment from the company which has so disposed of such lands of an amount equal to the government price of similar lands; and in case of neglect or refusal of such company to make payment as hereafter specified, within ninety days after the demand shall have been made, the attorney-general shall cause suit or suits to be brought against such company for the said amount: provided, that nothing in this act shall prevent any purchaser of lands erroneously withdrawn, certified, or patented as aforesaid from recovering the purchase-money therefor from the grantee company, less the amount paid to the United States by such company as by this act required: and provided, that a mortgage or pledge of said lands by the company shall not be considered as a sale for the purpose of this act, nor shall this act be construed as a declaration of forfeiture of any portion of any land grant for conditions broken, or as authorizing an entry for the same, or as a waiver of any rights that the United States may have on account of any breach of said conditions.'

By the act of February 12, 1896, congress added the following proviso to section 4 of the act of March 3, 1887, just quoted:

'Provided further, that where such purchasers, their heirs or assigns, have paid only a portion of the purchase price to the company, which is less than the government price of similar lands, they shall be required, before the delivery of patent for their lands, to pay to the government a sum equal to the difference between the portion of the purchase price so paid and the government price, and in such case the amount demanded from the company shall be the amount paid to it by such purchaser.'

By the act of March 2, 1896, entitled 'An act to provide for the extension of time within which suits may be brought to vacate and annul land patents, and for other purposes,' congress declared, among other things, that 'no Patents to any lands held by a bona fide purchaser shall be vacated or annulled, but the right and title of such purchaser is hereby confirmed,' with a proviso not pertinent to the present case.

Sections 2 and 3 of the act of March 2, 1896, are as follows:

'Sec. 2. That if any person claiming to be a bona fide purchaser of any lands erroneously patented or certified shall present him claim to the secretary of the interior prior to the institution of a suit to cancel a patent or certification, and if it shall appear that he is a bona fide purchaser, the secretary of the interior shall request that suit be brought against the patentee, or the corporation, company, person, or association of persons for whose benefit the certification was made, for the value of said land, which in no case shall be more than the minimum government price thereof, and the title of such claimant shall stand confirmed. An adverse decision by the secretary of the interior on the bona fides of such claimant shall not be conclusive of his rights, and if such claimant, or one claiming to be a bona fide purchaser, but who has not submitted his claim to the secretary of the interior, is made a party to such suit, and if found by the court to be a bona fide purchaser, the court shall decree a confirmation of the title, and shall render a decree in behalf of the United States against the patentee, corporation, company, person, or association of persons for whose benefit the certification was made for the value of the land as hereinbefore provided. Any bona fide purchaser of lands patented or certified to a railroad company, and who is not made a party to such suit, and who has not submitted his claim to the secretary of the interior, may establish his right as such bona fide purchaser in any United States court having jurisdiction of the subject-matter, or at his option as prescribed in sections three and four of chapter three hundred and seventy-six of the acts of the second session of the forty-ninth congress.
'Sec. 3. That if at any time prior to the institution of suit by the attorney-general to cancel any patent or certification of lands erroneously patented or certified a claim is presented to the secretary of the interior by or on behalf of any person or persons, corporation or corporations, claiming that such person or persons, corporation or corporations, is a bona fide purchaser or are bona fide purchasers of any patented or certified land by deed or contract, or otherwise, from or through the original patentee or corporation to which patent or certification was issued, no suit or action shall be brought to cancel or annul the patent or certification for said land until such claim is investigated in said department of the interior; and if it shall appear that such person or corporation is a bona fide purchaser as aforesaid, or that such persons or corporations are such bona fide purchasers, then no such suit shall be instituted and the title of such claimant or claimants shall stand confirmed; but the secretary of the interior shall request that suit be brought
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • The State ex rel. Barker v. Chicago & Alton Railroad Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 12, 1915
    ... ... Co., 60 Neb. 320; Thompson v. Reasoner, 122 ... Ind. 454; United States v. Rithstein, 187 F. 268; ... Brown v. Trust Co., 193 F. 672; ... 434; Heiserman v. Railroad, ... 63 Iowa 732; Southern Ry. v. Ala. R. R. Com., 196 ... Fed. l. c. 560; Bellamy v. Railroad, ... ...
  • Southern Pac. R. Co. v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • October 19, 1904
  • Southern Pac. Ry. Co. v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • February 6, 1911
  • SOUTHERN PACIFIC R. CO. V. UNITED STATES
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • February 19, 1906
    ...adjudged that the United States recover from the railroad company the value of those lands, a sum amounting in the aggregate to ,596.92. 117 F. 544. This decree was affirmed by the court of appeals, 133 F. 651, from whose decision the railroad company and the trustees appealed to this Court......
  • 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