Young v. Hanson
| Decision Date | 15 October 1895 |
| Citation | 64 N.W. 654,95 Iowa 717 |
| Parties | YOUNG v. HANSON. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, Webster county; N. B. Hyatt, Judge.
The parties to this action present conflicting claims of ownership to 40 acres of land in Webster county. The suit is in equity, and each party demands that his title to the property be established and quieted as against the other. There was a decree in the district court for the defendant, and the plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.R. M. Wright, for appellant.
Frank Farrell, for appellee.
1. The plaintiff claims title to the land under the act of congress known as the “Railroad-Land Grant,” of May 15, 1856, and a grant from the state of Iowa to the Dubuque & Pacific Railway Company, and by subsequent transfers to the Dubuque & Sioux City Railway Company, and by a certification of the land by the department of the interior to the last-named company, bearing date November 14, 1891, and by a quitclaim deed from the railroad company to William Ragan, and a like deed from Ragan to the plaintiff. The defendant's claim of ownership is founded on what is known as the “Swamp-Land Grant,” passed by congress on the 28th day of September, 1850, and by an act of the general assembly of this state passed January 13, 1853, and the subsequent selection of the land as swamp land, and the sale of the same by the county of Webster to John F. Duncombe, a deed from Duncombe to Thomas Snell, and by a written contract of sale of the land by Snell to the defendant, dated in the month of June, 1875, and a warranty deed from Snell to the plaintiff, dated in June, 1880. At the time of the contract of purchase from Snell, the defendant paid $100 of the purchase money, and in the same year he took actual possession of the land, and he has ever since that time been in actual, open, and notorious occupancy of the same. He erected a dwelling house and farm buildings on the land, and has occupied and used them from 1875 to the present time. The consideration paid by the defendant for the land was $6.50 an acre.
The first question to be determined is, was the land in September, 1850, when the swamp-land act was passed by congress, of the character designated as swamp land in the grant. A number of witnesses were examined upon this question of fact. The testimony of these witnesses has received proper consideration in our investigation of the case, and we think the very decided preponderance of the evidence is that more than one-half of the land was swampy and unfit for cultivation in the year 1850. The principal witnesses for the plaintiff consisted of a surveyor and his party who made a survey of the land and took observations thereof a short time before the hearing of the case in the court below; and, after describing the present condition of the land, these witnesses gave their judgment as to how much of the land was swampy in the year 1850. This evidence is very unsatisfactory, and in Connors v. Meservey, 76 Iowa, 691, 39 N. W. 388, it was held that evidence of the present condition of the land is immaterial. The testimony of witnesses who knew the land in its original and natural state, when that part of the country was but very sparely settled, and before any attempt had been made to break up the sod and cultivate that and the adjoining lands, satisfactorily shows that the tract in controversy was properly selected as having passed under the swamp-land act.
2. The selection of the land as swamp land, the conveyance to the county, and the subsequent conveyance to Duncombe, and from him to Snell, and from Snell to the defendant, appear to have been in due form and in substantial compliance with every legal requirement. But the plaintiff claims that the swamp-land selection was canceled and set aside by the department of the interior...
To continue reading
Request your trial