Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Mr. Justice Brewer delivered the opin- fusion by further patents under the survey ion of the court: of 1875.

The case was tried by the court without a jury. No special findings of fact having been made, and the proceedings in the trial court having been approved by the supreme court of the state, without an opinion, we must affirm the judgment if there be evidence sufficient to sustain it, although there may be other testimony of a contradictory nature. It is not our province to weigh conflicting testimony in a case coming to us as this does.

The patent to Gleason was three years after the last survey, which, in so far as it conflicted with the prior survey, superseded that, and became the official record of the Land Department. Notwithstanding this, the patent purports to convey lots 1 and 2 as shown by the survey of 1845. Undoubtedly the mistake arose because the homestead entry, which must have been five years before the patent, was made before the survey of 1875, and at that time the It is undoubtedly true that the official official record was the plat of 1845, which surveys of the public lands of the United showed only the two lots. Through careStates are controlling. Stoneroad v. StoneStoneroad v. Stone- lessness, and not recognizing the change road, 158 U. S. 240, 39 L. ed. 966, 15 Sup. made by the survey of 1875, the patent reCt. Rep. 822; Russell v. Maxwell Land fers to the survey of 1845, relying upon the Grant Co. 158 U. S. 253, 39 L. ed. 971, 15 description in the homestead entry. The Sup. Ct. Rep. 827; United States v. Mon- land patented amounted to 164.84 acres. tana Lumber & Mfg. Co. 196 U. S. 573, ante, The homestead law allowed one to enter 367, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 367; Whitaker v. Mc- 160 acres, and as the patent covered 4.84 Bride, 197 U. S. 510, ante, 530, 25 Sup. Ct. acres more than the amount allowed for a Rep. 530. Here we have two conflicting homestead, the patentee paid the governofficial surveys and plats, and, by mistake ment price for the excess,-$6.05. The conof the Land Department, two patents have tract of McKay for the survey of 1845 was been issued, which, in a certain aspect of a contract to survey the exterior lines of the surveys and plats, also conflict. It is township 53, and, while the field notes of one of those unfortunate mistakes which the west line of the township are preserved, sometimes occur, and which necessarily his notes of the east and subdivision lines throw confusion and doubt upon titles. are not to be found in the Land DepartSince it was discovered, the Land Department. The plat, as will be seen, shows an ment has wisely refused to extend the con-east line running north 2° west, 80.60

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

chains, a south line 22.61 chains from the | the west half of the southwest quarter of west line, and a north line 19.81 chains, section 19, the east line, as shown by the making almost a rectangle, and containing plat, being almost a straight line, running the number of acres described in the patent. north and south. It does not seem that he East of this township appears Biscayne bay, could have been mistaken as to the land according to each plat. The plat made in that he was acquiring from the govern1875 shows a south line of 22.35 chains, ment, for he must have lived on it five very nearly the same as that of the plat of years in order to have perfected his home1845, but the north line is 59.92 chains, stead. He could not have been ignorant of making an almost complete quarter of the the large tract lying east of what was deN. W. sec. 19. The field notes of the survey scribed in the plat of 1845 as "lot 1." The of 1875 show that the surveyor found on the official plat at the time of the patent was line between sections 18 and 19, at a dis- the plat of the survey of 1875. He was tance of 40.35 chains from the west town- chargeable, as matter of law, with notice ship line, an old quarter section post, and of that plat. More than that, as the survey set a new one in place of it. It would seem was at his instance, it is a reasonable asa not unreasonable conclusion from this sumption that he knew in fact what the that McKay, in 1845, in fact surveyed a lines of that survey and plat were. Under tract of land east of lots 1 and 2, but that those circumstances full justice is done if when the plat was made either his field a patent title to lands outside his lines, as notes had disappeared or were ignored in shown by the plat of 1845, is sustained, for running the lines of the north half of sec- he still is protected in the tract bounded by tion 19. It further appears that the survey those lines, and amounting to 164.84 acres. of 1875 was requested by the patentee, To give him twice that amount of land William H. Gleason, who stated that the would be enabling him to profit by a missurvey of the entire township was entirely, take of the government, a mistake of or almost entirely, obliterated. It also ap- which he was cognizant. Under those cirpears that Gleason, when he received his cumstances we are of opinion that the judgpatent, took title to what was substantially ment of the Supreme Court of Florida must the west half of the northwest quarter and be and it is affirmed.

FOLLOWING ARE MEMORANDA

OF

ALL CASES DISPOSED OF AT OCTOBER TERM, 1904,

WITHOUT OPINIONS AND NOT ELSEWHERE OR OTHERWISE REPORTED IN THIS EDITION.

TENTH RULE.

WILLIAM A. PAULSEN, Plaintiff in Error, v. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. [No. 9.]

ATLANTIC LUMBER COMPANY, Petitioner, v. L. BUCKI & SON LUMBER COMPANY. [No. 220.]

On Writ of Certiorari to the United

In Error to the Supreme Court of the States Circuit Court of Appeals for the State of Illinois. Fifth Circuit.

[blocks in formation]

GIOVANNI ZARCONE, Appellant, v. WILLIAM | HOUGHTON E. JAMES et al., Appellants, v. WILLIAMS, Commissioner of Immigration, etc. [No. 101.]

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.

Mr. Alex. Rosenthal for appellant. The Attorney General for appellee. October 11, 1904. Dismissed, with costs, on motion of Mr. Solicitor General Hoyt on behalf of counsel for appellant.

WILLIAM L. ELKINS, Appellant, v. CITY OF
CHICAGO et al. [Nos. 11, 12.]
Appeals from the Circuit Court of the
United States for the Northern District of
Illinois.

Messrs. Henry Crawford and John S. Miller for appellant.

Mr. John C. Mathis for appellees. October 11, 1904. Stricken from the docket, per stipulation.

BARBARA WARNER, as Administratrix, etc., Plaintiff in Error, v. CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY et al. [No. 161.]

In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Nebraska. Mr. Wm. D. McHugh for plaintiff in

error.

Mr. H. C. Brome for defendants in error. October 11, 1904. Dismissed, at cost of defendants in error, per stipulation of counsel.

WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Ap pellant, v. CITY OF TOLEDO et al. [No. 163.]

Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Messrs. H. D. Estabrook and Jno. W. Warrington for appellant.

Mr. U. G. Denman for appellees. October 11, 1904. Dismissed, with costs, on authority of appellant.

GERMANIA IRON COMPANY [No. 1]; JAMES BELDEN, Appellant, v. MIDWAY COMPANY [No. 2].

Appeals from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. See same case below, 46 C. C. A. 476, 107 Fed. 597.

Messrs. Frank B. Kellogg and C. A. Severance for appellants.

Mr. Walter Ayers for appellees. October 11, 1904. Dismissed, with costs, on authority of appellants.

RUFUS BINYON, Plaintiff in Error, v. UNITED STATES. [No. 176.]

In Error to the United States Court of Appeals for the Indian Territory.

See same case below (Ind. Terr.) 76 S. W. 265.

Mr. W. H. Green for plaintiff in error. The Attorney General and Assistant Attorney General Purdy for defendant in error.

October 17, 1904. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction, on the authority of Brown v. United States, 171 U. S. 631, 43 L. ed. 312, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 56; Cross v. United States, 145 U. S. 571, 36 L. ed. 821, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 842.

LEE LOOK, Plaintiff in Error, v. PEOPLE OF
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. [No. 333.]
In Error to the Supreme Court of the
State of California.

See same case below, 143 Cal. 216, 76 Pac. 1028.

Messrs. Henry C. McPike and A. H. Jarman for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. U. S. Webb and Jas. H. Campbell for defendant in error.

October 17, 1904. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction, but without costs.

WALTER C. PEACOCK, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES. [No. 177.]

Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Mr. Oliver Dibble for appellant. The Attorney General for appellee. October 11, 1904. Dismissed, per stipulation.

v.

TACOMA MILL COMPANY, Petitioner, BLACK HILLS & NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY et al. [No. 337.]

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Messrs. Frederic D. McKenney, James H. Ashton, and E. C. Hughes for petitioner. Mr. James B. Howe for respondents. October 17, 1904. Granted.

[blocks in formation]

Messrs. C. E. S. Wood, Geo. H. Williams,

Messrs. H. D. Estabrook and H. N. Low A. B. Browne, and Thos. D. Rambaut for pefor petitioner.

Mr. Henry Calver for respondent.

[blocks in formation]

titioner.

Messrs. Zera Snow and Wallace M. MoCamant for respondent.

October 17, 1904. Denied.

JOHN T. ANDREWS, Petitioner, v. CHICAGO BUNKER HILL & SULLIVAN MINING & CON& NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY. [No. 276.]

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

See same case below, 64 C. C. A. 399, 130 Fed. 65.

Mr. A. C. Parker for petitioner.
Mr. James C. Davis for respondent.
October 17, 1904. Denied.

CENTRATING COMPANY, Petitioner, v. CHARLES T. JONES. [No. 318.]

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

See same case below, 130 Fed. 813. Mr. Myron A. Folsom for petitioner. Messrs. Thomas O'Day and F. C. Robertson for respondent.

October 17, 1904. Denied.

« AnteriorContinuar »