Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

because such claims, being invalid, should be canceled, and upon cancellation thereof a new entry, selection, or location may be allowed as though the former had never been made.

15. Amendment of an entry becomes effective, by relation, as of the date of the original entry in all cases except where the effect of the amendment is to transfer the entry in its entirety to lands other than those originally selected for entry. In all cases, therefore, where amendment is granted to correct a mistake in description and to effect the entryman's original intention, or to increase. merely the area embraced by the entry, such amendment will not be effective to alter the time within which the requirements of the law must be complied with. In other cases, the date of the amendment will be treated as the date of the entry and the time within which residence is to be established or proof of any kind submitted will be computed from that date.

The circular of April 22, 1909 (37 L. D. 655), and all other circulars or instructions concerning amendments incompatible herewith, are hereby revoked.

Approved.

CLAY TALLMAN, Commissioner.

ANDRIEUS A. JONES, First Assistant Secretary.

(Form omitted.)

AMENDMENT OF ENTRIES UNDER PARAGRAPH 10, CIRCULAR NO.

423 (44 L. D. 181)

INSTRUCTIONS

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

GENERAL LAND OFFICE,
Washington, June 26, 1924.

Chiefs of Divisions C, F, and K, General Land Office.

SIRS: Paragraph 10, of Circular No. 423 (44 L. D. 181), provides for the amendment of certain classes of entries on equitable grounds, and paragraph 12 restricts the allowance of such amendments to cases wherein at least one legal subdivision of the lands originally entered is retained in the amended entry, and the application for amendment is submitted within one year next after discovery of the existence of the conditions relied upon as entitling the entryman to the relief sought, or within one year succeeding the date on which, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, the existence of such conditions might have been discovered.

In a number of instances, the most recent being the case of William Olson, Miles City 049153, the department has reversed decisions of this office denying applications to amend under said paragraph 10 on the sole ground that the applicant either failed to retain one legal subdivision or to present his application within one year.

It would appear to follow that said paragraph 12 is not mandatory, and if this office, upon consideration of all the facts presented, con

cludes that equitable relief is warranted under paragraph 10, it should, if necessary, waive either or both of the restrictions of paragraph 12, and grant the amendment.

You will be governed accordingly.
Very respectfully,

WILLIAM SPRY, Commissioner

[Reported, 51 L. D. 281]

ISSUANCE OF AMENDED PATENT TO TRANSFEREE

INSTRUCTIONS

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
Washington, November 13, 1925.

FINNEY, First Assistant Secretary:

By decision of April 3, 1925, unreported, the department affirmed your [Commisisoner of the General Land Office] decision of September 24, 1924, rejecting the application of Minnie C. Coleman to make homestead entry for NW. 14 SE. 4, sec. 29, T. 2 N., R. 20 W., N. M. M., New Mexico.

The decision was based on evidence to the effect that the tract applied for was in the possession of Harris Miller, claiming as a remote transferee of Mancel H. Thompson, to whom a patent for NE. 14 SE. 14, sec. 30, said township, issued July 31, 1903, under a forest lieu selection filed April 17, 1901.

On September 15, 1922, said Miller applied to so amend the patent as to make the description read NW. 14 SE. 14, said sec. 29. Your office has reached the conclusion that the application to amend is in conformity with the regulations, but instructions have been informally requested as to whom the amended or supplemental patent should issue, it being stated that, under the long-established practice of your office, the patent would issue to Mancel H. Thompson. The cases of Hawley v. Diller (178 U. S. 476) and Nicholas Van Gass (44 L. D. 139) are cited in support of your practice.

Prior to the amendment of section 2372, Revised Statutes, by the act of February 24, 1909 (35 Stat. 645), there was no law under which an application by the transferee of a patented selection could be entertained. As amended by the act cited, said section provides—

In all cases where an entry, selection, or location has been or shall hereafter be made of a tract of land not intended to be entered, the entryman, selector, or locator, or, in case of his death, his legal representatives, or when the claim is by law transferable, his or their transferees, may, in any case coming within the provisions of this section, file his or their affidavit, with such additional evidence as can be procured showing the mistake as to the numbers of the tract intended to be entered, * ** * with the register and receiver of the land district in which such tract of land is situate, who should transmit the evidence * * * to the Commissioner of the General Land Office, who, if he be entirely satisfied that the mistake has been made is authorized to change the entry and transfer the payment from the tract erroneously entered to that intended to be entered. *

[ocr errors]

*

* *

*

Under the regulations, an application for amendment filed by the transferee of a patented entry, selection, or location must be sup

ported by an abstract of title, showing present ownership by the applicant of the tract sought to be eliminated from the patent, and a duly recorded conveyance to the United States of the tract erroneously entered and patented. Miller has filed such abstract and reconveyance, and unless a patent for the tract to which the selection is amended is issued to him, he will not thereby acquire a merchantable title, even though the patent recites the reason for its issuance, but he will be put to the trouble and expense of applying to the local courts to quiet his title.

By dealing with Miller as the transferee of the patented tract, and accepting his conveyance thereof, you became bound to issue to him a patent for the tract which he has shown he thought he purchased and which the selector thought was the land he was occupying and had transferred to Miller's remote transferor.

I find nothing in the cases of Hawley v. Diller and Nicholas Van Gass, supra, which has any bearing upon the question presented in this case.

[blocks in formation]

Reference is made to your [Commissioner of the General Land Office] letter of January 13, 1926, asking instructions in regard to the issuance of patent on an amended homestead entry where the land was transferred after issuance of final certificate, and where no patent has issued.

The entry referred to was made by Everett Chambers for land described as lots 1 and 2, E. 12 NW. 14 and NE. 14. sec. 30, T. 17 S., R. 54 W., 6th P. M., Colorado. Final certificate issued May 15, 1919, but no patent has issued. The land has been transferred to Oris L. Balsiger.

A resurvey of this township shows error in the description of the tracts held under this entry, and the proper description is given by the surveyor as lots 3 and 4, E. 12 SW. 14 and SE. 14, sec. 30, said township, which calls for lands one-half mile south of that given in the entry. Mr. Chambers requested amendment in accordance with the new survey.

The question presented is whether it would be proper in issuing patent on this entry when amended, to issue same in the name of the transferee, or whether it should issue in the name of the entryman. In the case of Harris Miller, decided November 13, 1925 (51 L. D. 281), which involved amendment of a patented entry to embrace lands of a different survey description from that given in the entry as patented, the department held that the new patent should issue in the name of the transferee. The reason for that ruling was that the transferee would not have a merchantable title for the

land under the new description unless patent issued to him. and would be put to the trouble and expense of applying to the courts to quiet his title. It seems that the same reasoning would apply in the instant case and that the rule should be the same even though patent has not been heretofore issued in his case.

The land was subject to transfer after issuance of the final certificate, and the description proposed for the patent is for lands which do not satisfy the description contained in the transfer. In case the evidence of title in the transferee be sufficient to justify his recognition for amendment of the entry at his request. it is deemed proper to issue the patent in his name as transferee. By designating him as transferee of the original entryman, the identity of the basic claim will be indicated. The decision in the Harris Miller case, supra, should be applied in the same manner.

AMERICAN ANTIQUITIES

UNIFORM RULES AND REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY THE SECRETARIES OF THE INTERIOR, AGRICULTURE, AND WAR TO CARRY OUT THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT FOR THE PRESERVATION OF AMERICAN ANTIQUITIES, APPROVED JUNE 8, 1906 (34 STAT. L. 225)

INSTRUCTIONS, DECEMBER 28, 1906.

1. Jurisdiction over ruins, archæological sites, historic and prehistoric monuments and structures, objects of antiquity, historic landmarks, and other objects of historic or scientific interest, shall be exercised under the act by the respective Departments as follows:

By the Secretary of Agriculture over lands within the exterior limits of forest reserves, by the Secretary of War over lands within the exterior limits of military reservations, by the Secretary of the Interior over all other lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States, provided the Secretaries of War and Agri culture may by agreement cooperate with the Secretary of the Interior in the supervision of such monuments and objects covered by the act of June 8, 1906, as may be located on lands near or adjacent to forest reserves and military reservations, respectively.

2. No permit for the removal of any ancient monument or structure which can be permanently preserved under the control of the United States in situ, and remain an object of interest, shall be granted.

3. Permits for the examination of ruins, the excavation of archaological sites, and the gathering of objects of antiquity will be granted, by the respective Secretaries having jurisdiction, to reputable museums, universities, colleges, or other recognized scientific or educational institutions, or to their duly authorized agents.

4. No exclusive permits shall be granted for a larger area than the applicant can reasonably be expected to explore fully and systematically within the time limit named in the permit.

5. Each application for a permit should be filed with the Secretary having jurisdiction, and must be accompanied by a definite outline of the proposed work, indicating the name of the institution making the request, the date proposed for beginning the field work, the length of time proposed to be devoted to it, and the person who will have immediate charge of the work. The application must also contain an exact statement of the character of the work, whether examination, excavation, or gathering, and the public museum in which the collections made under the permit are to be permanently preserved. The application must be accompanied by a sketch plan or description of the particular site or area to be examined, excavated,

« AnteriorContinuar »