Woodruff v. Wallace

• Decision Date: 27 July 1895
• Citation: 41 P. 357,3 Okla. 355,1895 OK 56
• Parties: WOODRUFF v. WALLACE.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

41 P. 357

3 Okla. 355, 1895 OK 56

WOODRUFF v. WALLACE.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

July 27, 1895

Syllabus by the Court.

1. District courts of this territory have jurisdiction to inquire into the right of possession as between settlers upon public land; and, where it appears that the rights of adverse claimants have been adjudicated by the land department, and the homestead entry of one of the parties has been canceled held, that the district court may, by injunction give exclusive possession to the person who was successful in the contest proceedings.

2. The forcible entry and detainer act of this territory does not provide an adequate and speedy remedy to a person who is entitled to the exclusive and immediate possession of land covered by his homestead entry.

3. It is the duty of the courts, when called upon, to issue an injunction, mandatory and prohibitory, to restrain a person whose homestead entry has, by the land department, been canceled--First, to compel such party to yield up and surrender possession of land; and, second, to prohibit him from interfering with the possession of the person who has the homestead filing for such land.

4. The occupying claimant's act, passed by congress June 1 1874, has no application to land until the title to the same passes from the government of the United States.

5. A homestead filing does not convey "color of title," within the meaning of the act of congress of June 1, 1874.

6. A person whose homestead entry has been canceled for fraud in its inception cannot avail himself of the benefits of the occupying claimant's act.

Appeal from district court, Oklahoma county.

Action by Willie A. Wallace against Lyman C. Woodruff for injunction. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Grant Stanley, for plaintiff in error.

J. H.

Everest, for defendant in error.

DALE C.J.

This is a case upon appeal from the district court of Oklahoma county, and from the pleadings it appears that Willie A. Wallace, plaintiff below, filed in the district court his petition for an injunction, wherein he alleged, in substance, that he is the homestead entryman for the southeast quarter of section 34, township 12 N., range 3 W., in Oklahoma county, having made homestead entry thereon February, 13, 1895; that Lyman C. Woodruff, defendant below, formerly had a homestead entry on the tract of land, and that said Woodruff is continuing to reside upon, use, and occupy the entire tract, to the exclusion of said Wallace; that the homestead entry of said Woodruff was, prior to the institution of suit, canceled by the commissioner of the general land office, under the authority and direction of the secretary of the interior, on the 9th day of February, 1895; that such cancellation was the result of a contest instituted by said Wallace against said Woodruff; that in the contest affidavit, filed as a basis for said contest, it was alleged that said Woodruff violated the act of congress approved March 2, 1889, and the president's proclamation of March 23, 1889, relative to the Oklahoma lands, of which the tract in question is a part, by entering upon said lands prior to noon of April 22, 1889. And it is further alleged that, after the entry of Woodruff was canceled, and the entry of Wallace was made upon the land, Woodruff refused to vacate the premises, and refused to permit Wallace to use or occupy any portion of the land so filed upon by said Wallace. Wallace also alleged that he had no adequate remedy at law whereby he could obtain possession of the tract of land in controversy; and further alleged that, under the laws of congress, it was incumbent upon him to reside upon and improve the tract of land in order to maintain the validity of his homestead entry. In the petition Wallace asked that a mandatory injunction be issued, compelling Woodruff to vacate the premises, and restraining him from further trespassing upon the land in controversy. Attached to the petition appear copies of the decisions of the commissioner of the general land office and the secretary of the interior, which decisions fully state the issues tried in the contest proceeding before the land department, showing that the entry of Woodruff was canceled by reason of the contest proceedings instituted by Wallace, and that Wallace had been awarded the preference right of entry to the tract of land; also appears, as an exhibit, a copy of the receiver's duplicate receipt, showing that Wallace had filed his homestead entry in the Oklahoma City land office for the tract in question. To such petition, Woodruff first filed a demurrer. The record does not disclose what action was taken by the court upon the demurrer. The record further shows that Woodruff filed his answer, wherein he denied that he entered upon and occupied a portion of Oklahoma lands prior to the hour of 12 o'clock noon of April 22, 1889, contrary to law; also denied that his entry was ever canceled by any court of competent jurisdiction; also denied that the plaintiff had no adequate remedy at law; and, as an additional and further defense, alleged that he settled upon the land after noon of April 22, 1889, and, on the 25th day of April, 1889, filed in the United States land office his homestead entry for such tract of land, and received the receiver's duplicate receipt therefor; and further alleged that he had resided upon and improved the tract of land from the time of his settlement until the date of the institution of this suit in the court below; that, during such time, he had broken a portion of said land, and cultivated the same, erected a house and barn and other improvements thereon, and that the value of said improvements was of the sum of $1,000; and that, by reason of such filing, entry, and improvements, he acquired an equitable title in the tract of land; and, under color of such title, alleged that he was entitled to the benefit of the occupying claimant's act; and also alleged that the cancellation of his entry was procured by fraud and perjury, and that such cancellation was illegal and void, and that he is in no manner divested of his rights and equities in the said tract of land by reason of the pretended and fraudulent cancellation of his entry; and that he is entitled to be reimbursed by the plaintiff for the money expended by him in placing a house and making the improvements upon the land aforesaid. A demurrer was filed to the answer of the defendant, and was by the court below sustained, and the injunctional order issued restraining the defendant below from trespassing upon or interfering with Wallace in the use or occupancy of any portion of the tract of land, and requiring Woodruff to remove entirely from the tract of land within 60 days from the date of the order, and permitting Woodruff, within said 60 days, to remove from the land all of his buildings, fences, and portable personal property. From such order the defendant below appealed to this court; and, by his assignments of error, and under the pleadings in this case, there is fairly raised for our consideration three propositions: First, it is contended that the legal title to the land being in the United States, the court below had no jurisdiction over the subject-matter; second, that the plaintiff below had an adequate remedy at law, and the mandatory injunction ought not to have been issued; third, that the act of congress of June 1, 1874, put into effect the territorial occupying claimant's law, and the court below had no power to dispossess the plaintiff in error until the value of his improvements had been determined and paid for.

The first contention raised by plaintiff in error has been heretofore passed upon by this court in Sproat v Durland, 35 P. 682, and in Peckham v. Faught, 37 P. 1085, wherein it was held that: "The courts of this territory have jurisdiction in matters relating to the possession of lands covered by homestead entries when the title to the same remains in the United States. That it is the duty of the courts to inquire into the status of parties claiming the right to reside upon public lands far enough to determine whether or not such parties are there in pursuance of some law of congress, giving such right; and, if it be found that, under the laws of congress relating to the disposition of public lands, there are parties upon lands, claiming adversely, one of whom may have the right of occupancy and possession and the other have no such right, then it is the plain duty of the courts to award possession and occupancy to the one whom congress intended should have such right." We thought we were sufficiently explicit in laying down the rule within which a court may act; but, inasmuch as the question is still in dispute, we will again discuss the matter. In the case under consideration, it appears that Woodruff, on April 22, 1889, settled upon the tract of land in controversy, and, on the 25th of said month, filed his homestead entry therefor; that Wallace instituted a contest against the entry of Woodruff, alleging that said Woodruff was disqualified to enter the land by reason of having entered upon and occupied the land described in the act of congress approved March 2, 1889, and opened by the proclamation of the president dated March 23d following, prior to 12 o'clock noon of April 22, 1889, and that such entry was contrary to law and the terms and provisions of the president's proclamation aforesaid. The contest proceeding so instituted resulted favorably to Wallace, and the entry of Woodruff was by the land department canceled, and Wallace filed his homestead entry therefor; and, at the time these proceedings were begun in the court below, all matters, so far as affecting the status of the parties in the land department of the United...