United States v. Winona & St. P.R. Co.

• Citation: 67 F. 969
• Decision Date: 06 May 1895
• Docket Number: 566.
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. WINONA & ST. P.R. CO. et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

67 F. 969

UNITED STATES v. WINONA & ST. P.R. CO. et al.

No. 566.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

May 6, 1895

Robert G. Evans, for the United States.

Thomas Wilson (Lloyd W. Bowers, on the brief), for appellees.

Before CALDWELL, SANBORN, and THAYER, Circuit Judges.

SANBORN Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a decree dismissing a bill brought by the United States under the act of March 3, 1887 (24 Stat. 556) to restore to the United States the title to 160 acres of land, which at the commencement of this suit was held by the appellee the Winona & St. Peter Land Company. That corporation had acquired its title through a certification of the land to the state to aid in the construction of the railroad of the Winona & St. Peter Railroad Company, the purchase of the land from that company by Barney and his associates, the purchase of the land from Barney and his associates by the land company, and through conveyances of the land by the state to the railroad company and by the railroad company to the land company, in the same way in which it acquired the land it held under the certificates for the benefit of the Winona Railroad Company in No. 564 (U.S. v. Winona & St. P.R. Co., 67 F. 948). The method by which that title was acquired by the land company and the rules and principles which measure the rights of the parties to it are stated with some care in the opinion in that case, and will not be here repeated. The two cases were argued and submitted together, and, with the exceptions to which we shall refer, the material facts in the two cases are the same.

The record in this case discloses one decisive fact which did not appear in that case. We held in that case that the United States could not maintain its suit to restore the title to the land held by this land company under the certificates to the state for the Winona Railroad Company, because both Barney and his associates and the land company were bona fide purchasers of the title to that land without notice of any defects therein. In this case they had full notice of the defects in the title to the 160 acres in question here before they bought or paid for the land. The grant was made March 3 1857 (11 Stat. 195). On June 30, 1857, one Marshall took possession of the land, and commenced to occupy and cultivate it for the purpose of acquiring the title to it under the pre-emption laws. On July 3, 1857, he made a pre-emption filing upon it in the proper land office, which has never been canceled. He held the possession of this land until 1878, when a judgment was rendered against him in an action of ejectment, which was brought by the land company in 1877 in the district court of Dodge county, Minn. In the meantime he had built a house and stables upon the land, and had cultivated and dwelt upon it at least a portion of the time. After the judgment of the district court had been rendered in 1878, he surrendered the possession of the land to this land company, in obedience to that judgment. On November 15, 1887, he filed in the office of the commissioner of the general land office an application for a reinstatement of his pre-emption rights, which has not been passed upon by the land department because that tribunal holds that it has no jurisdiction to consider it. This land is within the place limits of the grant for the Winona Company under the act of March 3, 1857 (11 Stat. 195). After the pre-emption filing was made, and while Marshall was in possession of this land, claiming it as a pre-emptor, the line of the definite locations of the Winona Company was fixed, this land was certified to the state to aid in the construction of that railroad, Barney and his associates bought it of the railroad company, the land company bought it of Barney and his associates, and the legal title was finally, on April 21, 1876, vested in the land company by means of conveyances from the state to the railroad company and from the railroad company to the land company.

The possession of this land by Marshall, claiming under his pre-emption filing, was notice to Barney and his associates and to the land company of his claims to the land as a pre-emptor, and of the fatal defect in their title to which these claims so clearly pointed. Lea v. Copper Co., 21 How. 493, 498; Noyes v. Hall, 97 U.S. 34, 37, 38; Siebert v. Rosser, 24 Minn. 155, 161; 16 Am.&amp Eng.Enc.Law,tit.'Notice,' subtit.'Possession,'p. 800, and authorities there cited. The purchase of the land company, therefore, lacks the essential element of absence of notice of defects in its title, and it cannot in this case sustain the defense that it is a bona fide purchaser. Nor can the United States be deprived of the relief sought in this suit by the statute of limitations, or by its laches, or on the ground of an estoppel in pais. No equitable estoppel against the government arises here from the fact that, if the United States had promptly set aside the certifications of this land to the state in 1862, immediately after it was made, the railroad company and its grantees might have acquired indemnity lands in place of this tract, while no such lands can now be...