Whitney v. Taylor, 278
Decision Date | 29 April 1895 |
Docket Number | No. 278,278 |
Citation | 158 U.S. 85,39 L.Ed. 906,15 S.Ct. 796 |
Parties | WHITNEY v. TAYLOR |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Ejectment by Joel Parker Whitney against Frank C. Taylor. There was a judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.
The controversy in this case is in respect to the title to the S. E. 1/4 of section 33, township 12 N., range 7 E., Mount Diablo meridian, in the state of California. The land is within the granted limits of the Central Pacific Railroad Company (12 Stat. 489), and the plaintiff claims under and by virtue of mesne conveyances from that company. The company filed its map of definite location on March 26, 1864, and fully constructed its road by the 10th of July, 1868. It demanded, but never received, a patent.
The title of the defendant rests on the following facts: On May 28, 1857, one Henry H. Jones, having paid the fees required by law in such cases, filed his pre-emption declaratory statement in the land office having jurisdiction over the premises, which declaratory statement was in the words and figures following:
'I, Henry H. Jones, of Placer county, being an American citizen, over the age of twenty-one years, and a single man, have, on the 16th day of January, 1854, settled and improved the southeast quarter of section No. thirty-three (33) of township No. twelve north (12 N.), of range No. seven east (7 E.), Mt. Diablo meridian, in the district of lands subject to sale at the land office at Marysville, California, containing one hundred and sixty acres, which land has not yet been offered at public sale, and thus rendered subject to private entry; and I do hereby declare my intention to claim the said tract of land as a pre-emption right under the provisions of an act of congress of 3rd day of March, 1853.
'Witness my hand, this 22nd day of May, A. D. 1857.
Henry H. Jones.
'In presence of V. E. Remington.'
The filing of this statement was duly noted in the proper volume of tract books in the land office, and was the only record claim to the premises prior to the time when the line of the Central Pacific Railroad was definitely fixed. The government survey was made intermediate the e ttlement by Jones, in 1854, and the filing of this statement. On April 18, 1856, a return of the official plat of such survey was made by the surveyor general for the state of California to the general land office at Washington, and during the same year a duplicate copy thereof was filed in the local land office. By such survey and return all the land in the township, including the premises in question, was ascertained and returned as agriculatural and not mineral or swamp land, and not embraced in any government reservation. On June 30, 1858, the president issued his proclamation for the sale of lands in that land district, this tract included, naming February 14, 1859, as the time for the opening of the sale, and notifying all pre-emption claimants that their rights would be forfeited unless prior to such date they should establish their claims and pay for the lands they had given notice of their intention to pre-empt. The proclamation further declared that 'no mineral lands or tracts containing mineral deposits are to be offered at the public sales, such mineral lands being hereby expressly excepted from sale or other disposal pursuant to the requirements of the act of congress approved March 3, 1853.' The land officers under this authority withheld from offer and sale all of section 33, stating in their report, dated March 13, 1859, that the land was reserved as mineral land.
Some time after the filing of the map of definite location, the railroad company commenced proceedings against Jones to have his declaratory statement canceled. The decision of the local land officers, adverse to Jones, was transmitted to the commissioner of the general office, who, on December 23, 1886, affirming their decision, held that,
This decision was affirmed by the secretary of the iuterior on July 17, 1888. On August 28, 1888, the defendant made entry of the premises under the homestead laws of the United States. Subsequently, he commuted such homestead entry under section 2301, Rev. St., made his final proofs, paid the sum of $400, and obtained the government receipt therefor. With reference to the occupation and improvement of the premises by Jones this is the finding of the trial court:
Upon the foregoing facts, the circuit court held that the land in controversy was at the time of defendant's homestead entry part of the public domain of the United States, and subject to disposal as public land, and, upon such conclusion, entered judgment in favor of the defendant. 45 Fed. 616.
B. E. Valentine, for plaintiff in error.
C. W. Holcomb and Wm. J. Johnston, for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice BREWER, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.
This case turns upon the question whether on March 26, 1864, at the time of the filing by the railroad company of its map of definite location, the tract in controversy was public land of the United States, and therefore passing under the grant to the company, or was excepted therefrom by reason of the previous declaratory statement of Jones. In Railway Co. v. Dunmeyer, 113 U. S. 629, 5 Sup. Ct. 566, one Miller had made a homestead entry on the land in controversy prior to the filing of the map of definite location. Thereafter he abandoned his homestead claim, and the contention was that such abandonment inured to the benefit of the company, and subjected the land to the operation of the grant; but this contention was denied, the court holding that the condition of the title at the date of the definite location determined the question as to whether the land passed to the railroad company or not, and, distinguishing Mining Co. v. Bugbey, 96 U. S. 165, said in reference to a homestead claim:
In Railroad Co. v. Whitney, 132 U. S. 357, 10 Sup. Ct. 112, these facts appeared: At the time of the filing by the plaintiff railroad company of its map of definite location, there stood upon the records of the local land office a homestead entry of Bentley S. Turner. This entry was based upon an affidavit made by Turner, a soldier in the army of the United States, and actually with his regiment in the state of Virginia, which affidavit stated that Turner was the head of a family, a citizen of the United States, and a resident of Franklin county, New York. It did not state that Turner's family, or any member thereof, was residing on the land, or that there was any improvement made thereon, and, as a matter of fact, no member of his family was then residing, or ever did reside, on the land, and no improvement whatever of any kind had ever been made thereon by any one. The application for the entry was made through one Conwell, whom Turner had constituted his attorney for that purpose. At the time of making this entry, section 1 of the act of March 21, 1864 (13 Stat. 35; Rev. St. § 2293), was in force, which authorized one in the military or naval service of the United States, and therefore unable to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Noble v. Oklahoma City
... ... v. Dunmeyer, 113 U.S. 629, 5 S.Ct. 566, 28 ... L.Ed. 1122; Hastings & Dakota Ry. Co. v. Whitney, ... 132 U.S. 357, 10 S.Ct. 112, 33 L.Ed. 363; Whitney v ... Taylor, 158 U.S. 85, 15 S.Ct ... ...
-
Little v. Williams
...or by intendment of law, it would not pass under the grant, though the reservation be afterwards removed. 113 U.S. 629; 145 U.S. 535; 158 U.S. 85; 132 U.S. 357; 189 U.S. 447; Pet. 497; 92 U.S. 733; 54 Ark. 266. It follows, therefore, that, as the bed of Walker's Lake was excepted from the g......
-
Noble v. Okla. City
...119 U.S. 55; Kansas, Pac. Ry. Co. v. Dunmeyer, 113 U.S. 629; Hastings & Dakota Ry. Co. v. Whitney, 132 U.S. 357; Whitney v. Taylor, 158 U.S. 85, 15 S.Ct. 796, 39 L.Ed. 906; Sioux City & Iowa Falls Land Co. v. Griffey, 143 U.S. 32, 12 S.Ct. 362, 36 L.Ed. 64; United States v. Southern Pac. Ry......
-
Morrow v. Warner Valley Stock Co.
... ... selected and approved by the Secretary as swamp land ... Frisbie v. Whitney, 9 Wall. 187, 19 L.Ed. 668; The ... Yosemite Valley Case, 15 Wall. 77, 21 L.Ed. 82 ... it from subsequent grants." ... In ... Whitney v. Taylor, 158 U.S. 85, 92, 95, 15 Sup.Ct ... 796, 39 L.Ed. 906, which referred to a pre-emption ... ...