United States v. Stinson

• Decision Date: 06 October 1903
• Docket Number: 829.
• Citation: 125 F. 907
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. STINSON et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

125 F. 907

UNITED STATES v. STINSON et al.

No. 829.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

October 6, 1903

John B Simmons and M. C. Burch, for the United States.

A. L Sanborn and Robert Bashford, for appellees.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Wisconsin.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Before JENKINS, GROSSCUP, and BAKER, Circuit Judges.

GROSSCUP Circuit Judge.

The suit in the Circuit Court was to set aside patents upon fourteen quarter sections of land in Douglas County, State of Wisconsin, issued by the United States severally to fourteen grantees, at different times from December 15th, 1855, to March 25th, 1865. The patents were issued in pursuance of preemption by the several patentees, the dates of settlement named in the affidavits running from August 17th, 1854, to June 11th, 1855, and the dates of proving up running from October 24th, 1854, to June 22nd, 1855. Each of the quarter sections on or about the date when proven up by the preemptor, was conveyed to appellee, James Stinson; who following such conveyance, entered into possession, and has continued in possession until February 19th, 1900, when receivers were appointed at the instance of his creditors. In the receivership proceedings debts amounting to upwards of five hundred and eighty thousand dollars have been proven against Stinson, about two hundred and fifty thousand dollars of which are the claims of depositors of a bank operated by Stinson. The lands in suit constitute the main part of the assets available for the payment of these debts-- debts presumable incurred, to some extent at least, upon the credit that the apparent ownership of these lands gave to Stinson.

The contention of the government is, that the lands were not preempted in accordance either with the letter or spirit of the preemption law; that there was no actual settlement in person by the preemptor; that no dwellings within the meaning of the preemption law were erected; that the pretended preemptions were in substance the carrying out only, of an arrangement with Stinson, whereby Stinson, under the forms of preemption, obtained title to lands that in no other way could have been purchased by him from the government; in short, that the pretended preemptions were in bad faith intended at the time, not for the settlement and use of the preemptors, but as a part of Stinson's scheme in land speculation.

Testimony was submitted tending to show the truth of these averments. What conclusion would have been reached had this suit been commenced, and the evidence submitted, within such a period after the preemptions as would have enabled the court to have obtained an adequate knowledge of all the facts, it is not necessary, in the view we take of this case, to state.

The suit was not begun until February, 1895, a period of nearly forty years after the preemptors entered the lands and the government issued its patents. Meantime the land-- owing to the fact that the City of Superior, within whose corporate limits the lands are located, has grown with unusual rapidity-- have sprung into unusual value. Meantime, also, Stinson has paid taxes amounting to more than seventy-two thousand dollars, and there are now unpaid taxes, presumably colorable liens in favor of the state and its several municipalities, amounting to nearly as much more. Besides, creditors have come into the transaction-- creditors whose only knowledge respecting the lands was that Stinson held the title by patent, and had for forty years been in its undisputed possession and enjoyment. These facts alone would make it incumbent upon the government to present a convincing case-- a case that left no considerable doubt that a fraud had been practiced as alleged. But other facts are added.

At least six, and perhaps seven, of the original preemptors have died. Of the seven living, the testimony of three, for some reason, has not taken. Of the four others, two have been examined upon the part of the government, and two upon the part of the defense. Thus, out of fourteen parties, other than Stinson, to the original transaction, only four have been heard.

The testimony reveals that at...