United States v. Winona St Co

• Decision Date: 15 February 1897
• Docket Number: No. 321,321
• Citation: 17 S.Ct. 368,165 U.S. 463,41 L.Ed. 789
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. WINONA & ST. P. R. CO. et al
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

165 U.S. 463

17 S.Ct. 368

41 L.Ed. 789

UNITED STATES

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

No. 321.

February 15, 1897.

This was a bill in equity filed by the United States in the circuit court for the district of Minnesota, under authority of the act of congress of March 3, 1887 (24 Stat. 556), providing for the adjustment of land grants made by congress to aid in the construction of railroads, and for the forfeiture of unearned lands, etc. The charge was that the lands specified in the bill had been wrongfully certified to the state of Minnesota for the benefit of the defendant company, and the prayer was for a cancellation of such certification, and a restoration of the lands to the public domain. After answers by the railroad company and some of the other defendants, an agreed statement of facts was prepared, upon which with the pleadings the case was submitted to the circuit court for decision. Upon hearing, a decree was entered dismissing the bill, which thereafter was affirmed by the circuit court of appeals for the Eighth circuit. 32 U. S. App. 272, 15 C. C. A. 96, and 67 Fed. 948.

By the agreed statement, the following facts appear, and upon them the rights of the parties depend: On March 3, 1857, congress passed an act (11 Stat. 195) granting to Minnesota, to aid in the building of certain lines of railroad, the alternate odd-numbered sections, for six sections in width, on each side of the line of each road. The amount of this grant was increased by the act of March 3, 1865 (13 Stat. 526), to ten sections per mile. By appropriate state legislation, the defendant railroad company became one of the beneficiaries of this grant. It duly constructed its road, and the construction was accepted and approved. The lands in controversy were within the limits and terms of the grant, and were certified to the state nearly all in the years 1872, 1873, 1874, and 1875, though two tracts were not so certified until the year 1879. At the time of the filing by the railroad company of its map of definite location, there were on the records and files of the land office homestead entries or pre-emption filings upon these lands, regular in form and prima facie valid, some of them having been made intermediate the time that the line of the railroad was surveyed, staked out, and marked on the face of the earth and the date of the filing of the map of definite location, and some having been made prior to the first-named time. Proceedings were had in the general land office, after proper notice by publication, by which all these entries and filings were duly canceled prior to the certification of the lands to the state of Minnesota. The cancellations were generally on the ground of abandonment, and from the time thereof, up to the filing of the agreed statement of facts, July 26, 1893, none of the persons who had made such homestead entries or preemption filings had ever made any claim to the lands, so far as shown by the records of the land department. The railroad company sold and conveyed the lands to parties who paid value and bought believing that the company's title was unimpeachable. Further, after the patent from the state the lands were subjected to taxation, and the land company, the grantee from the railroad company of most of these lands, alone paid over $8,000 of taxes while it held the title. It was not pretended that the amount of lands certified for the benefit of the defendant railroad company (including therein the lands in controversy) exceeded the grant. In other words, it was not claimed that the railroad company ever got more lands than it was entitled to, but only that these particular tracts were wrongly certified to it.

It was also admitted 'that on, before, and for a long time after the certification of the lands in question to the state on account of the railroad grants, it was uniformly held and ruled by the secretary of the interior and the other officers of the land department of the United States (a) that the line of a railroad became and was definitely fixed so as to attach the grant to the odd-numbered sections within the granted limits as soon as surveyed, staked out, and marked on the face of the earth; and (b) that a homestead entry in all respects regular and legal excepted the land covered thereby from the operation of a railroad grant attaching during the existence of such entry, and that the validity of a homestead entry was open to question by the company, and if it was shown that such entry was fraudulent or irregular in its inception, or that it had been abandoned before the right of the road attached, it was held not to except the land from the grant, but the burden of so showing was upon the company, and, in the absence of such proof, the entry, being valid upon its face, was held to except the land from the grant, even though subsequently abandoned; and (c) that a pre-emption claim, which may have existed to a tract of land at the time of the attachment of a railroad grant, if subsequently abandoned, and not consummated, even though in all respects legal and bona fide, was held not to operate to defeat the grant, but, upon the failure of such claim, the land covered thereby was held to inure to the grant as of the date when such grant became effective; and (d) that the rights under the grant attached to the lands in the granted and indemnity limits as of the same date, and that selection was not deemed necessary to attach the grant to any specific tract within the indemnity limits; and (e) that the lands within the indemnity limits were withdrawn at the same time as those within the primary or granted limits; and (f) that within the common limits of like character of two contemporaneous grants each was held to be entitled to an undivided moiety of the lands within such common limits; and (g) that, in pursuance of and in accordance with the aforesaid rules, the grants to and for each and all of the land-grant railroad companies in the state of Minnesota were, before, at, and for a long time after the certification of the lands in question, administered.'

The act of March 3, 1887, is found printed below.¹

After the passage of that act, and on March 3, 1891, congress passed an act (26 Stat. 1093) containing this provision: 'That suits by the United States to vacate and annul any patent heretofore issued shall only be brought within five years from the passage of this act, and suits to vacate and annul patents hereafter issued shall only be brought within six years after the date of the issuance of such patents.' And on March 2, 1896, congress passed a still further act (29 Stat. 42), which is also found in the footnote.²

Sol. Gen. Gonrad, for the United States.

Thomas Wilson, for appellees.

Mr. Justice BREWER, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.

There are other matters disclosed in the record, such as the claim at one time asserted by the St. Paul & Sioux City Railroad Company to these lands or a part of them, the litigation between the two companies, and the final decision by this court, also certain transactions between the railroad company and a land company, and the litigation resulting therefrom, together with a series of conveyances by the railroad and the land company of the lands. But, in view of the conclusions to which we have come upon the facts stated, we deem it unnecessary to cumber the record with any detailed mention of those matters.

These facts appear: First. The railroad company has constructed its road, and has earned the land grant. Second. It has received no more land than congress, by the act referred to, proposed to grant to aid in the construction of the road. Third. At the time that the lands were certified to the state for its benefit, they were not subject to any homestead or pre-emption entry. They were free from all claims other than those of the railroad company itself, and were, except as subject to such claims, in the fullest sense public lands, and within the jurisdiction of the land department. Fourth. Up to March 2, 1885 (when Railway Co. v. Dunmeyer, 113 U. S. 629, 5 Sup. Ct. 566, was decided by this court), the uniform ruling of the land department had been that the title to railroad lands became settled at the time the line of the railroad was surveyed, staked out, and marked on the face of the earth, and not at the time of the filing of the map of definite location in the land department; that a homestead entry, though apparently regular and valid, was open to question by the railroad company, and if shown to have been fraudulent or irregular in inception, or that it had been abandoned before the right of the company attached, was held not to except the land from the grant; and also that a pre-emption claim existing at the time of the attaching of a railroad grant, if subsequently abandoned and not consummated,—even though in all respects legal and bona fide,—did not defeat the grant, but upon the failure of such claim the land covered thereby inured to the grant as of the date when it became effective. Fifth. Under such rules of construction, the land in controversy was all properly certified to the state for the benefit of the railroad company. Sixth. The lands were sold and conveyed by the railroad company to parties who paid full value and bought in good faith, believing the title which the railroad company assumed to convey to be perfect.

It is in the light of these facts that the scope and effect of the legislation of congress is to be considered and determined. There is certainly much of equity in the contention of the appellees. The railroad company has constructed the road, in aid of whose construction congress made this grant. Even though retaining all these tracts, it has failed to receive as large an amount of land as congress proposed to give. With full performance on its side, it has not received all that congress proffered. Of course, in entering upon its work, it...