Wood v. Beach
Decision Date | 04 March 1895 |
Docket Number | No. 143,143 |
Parties | WOOD v. BEACH |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Wm. Lawrence, for plaintiff in error.
A. T. Bullen, A. B. Browne, and Geo. R. Peck, for defendant in error.
The land in controversy is in an odd-numbered section, and within the indemnity limits of the Leavenworth, Lawrence & Galveston Railroad, and also within the like limits of the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway. The tract was selected, certified to the state, and by it patented to the railway company. The selection was made on August 8, 1872, and approved April 10, 1873, and the deed from the state was made on May 9, 1873. Within the decision in Kansas City, L. & S. K. R. Co. v. Attorney General, 118 U. S. 682, 7 Sup. Ct. 66, the legal title passed to the railway company. Mary E. Wood, the defendant, is the widow of C. B. Wood, who during his lifetime moved upon the land with his family, and sought to enter it as a homestead. But his occupation and settlement, as appears from the agreed statement of facts, commenced on June 8, 1870, and, while this was prior to the selection by the railroad companies, the land had years before been withdrawn from sale or location, preemption or homestead entries. Two orders of withdrawal were made by the department of the interior,—one on March 19, 1867, for the benefit of the Leavenworth, Lawrence & Galveston Railroad Company, and the other on April 30, 1867, for the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company. These orders of withdrawal were received at the local land office on April 3, 1867, and May 10, 1867, respectively. When Mr. Wood made application to file upon the land, he was informed that the land had been withdrawn, and his application was rejected. If those withdrawals were valid, no rights, legal or equitable, were acquired by his occupation and settlement.
It was said in Wolsey v. Chapman, 101 U. S. 755, 768:
This has been and is the settled rule of the courts and the land department. It is only a recognition of the limitations prescribed in the statutes, for, by Revised Statutes (section 2258), 'the lands included in any reservation by any treaty, law, or proclamation of the president, for any purpose,' are expressly declared to be not subject to the rights of pre-emption, and section 2289, the one giving the right to enter for a homestead, limits that right to 'unappropriated public lands.' The fact that the withdrawals were made by order of the interior department, and not by proclamation of the president, is immaterial.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Jordan v. Mayor and Commissioners of City of Greenwood
...ex rel. Boone et al. v. Metts et al., 125 Miss. 819, 88 So. 125; 32 Cyc. 517; Wolsey v. Chapman, 101 U.S. 755, 25 Law Ed. 915; Wood v. Beach, 156 U.S. 548, 15 S.Ct. R. 410, 39 Ed. 528; 6 Words & Phrases, p. 652. Chapter 268 of the Laws of 1926 did not have the effect of making the void orde......
-
State v. Sussex, 1 CA-CV 13-0009
...which would give color of title or exempt her from the imputation of a trespasser." (citation omitted) (emphasis omitted)); Wood v. Beach, 156 U.S. 548, 551 (1895) ("[I]t is clear that [the Homesteader] acquired no equitable rights by his occupation and settlement. He went upon lands which ......
-
McHenry v. Nygaard
...that this withdrawal was intended to be exclusive of any executive withdrawal, meets with a conclusive answer in the case of Wood v. Beach, 156 U.S. 548, where direction to the secretary to withdraw from the market "the lands granted by this act" was held not to exclude his authority to wit......
-
Fred Hewitt v. Emil Schultz
...ed. 267, 271, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 353; Riley v. Welles, 154 U. S. 578, and 19 L. ed. 648, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1166; Wood v. Beach, 156 U. S. 548, 39 L. ed. 528, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 410; Wisconsin C. R. Co. v. Forsythe, 159 U. S. 46, 54, 57, 40 L. ed. 71, 74, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1020; Spencer v. McDouga......
-
The Property Clause, Article Iv, and Constitutional Structure
...and the Myth of Congress's "1871 Shift," 82 U. Colo. L. Rev. 85, 118-20 (2011); Gates, supra note 86, at 181-82; see also Wood v. Beach, 156 U.S. 548, 551 (1895) (upholding withdrawal in aid of railroad legislation).134. See Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Pub. L. 94-579, §§......