.1016 xii Page 924 Southern R. Co., Ragsdale v. (C. C.). Standard Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Sale (C. C. A.).. . .. Union Life Ins. Co. of Omaha, Neb., Macgregor v. (C. C. A.).... 493 664 Stanley Electric Mfg. Co., Westinghouse United Breweries Co., Star Brewery of 713 101 United States v. Austin, Nichols & Co. (C. C. A.) 729 713 State Bank of Ambia, Chicago Title & Strauss v. Conried (C. C.).. Steam Vehicle Co. of America, In re (D. C.) 939 Such v. Bank of State of New York (C. C.) 202 United States v. Basic Co. (C. C. A.). 504 190 766 41 171 United States v. J. D. Iler Brewing Co. (C. C. A.). .1022 540 199 826 Supreme Council of Royal Arcanum v. United States v. Leggett (C. C. A.). 729 690 180 862 66 Surety Guarantee & Trust Co., In re (C. United States v. Schering & Glatz (C. C. 729 73 Sutcliff v. Seligman (C. C. A.). 803 Swick, National Biscuit Co. v. (C. C.).....1007 416 Tautphas, Owyhee Land & Irr. Co. v. (C. 343 United States, A. Steinhardt & Bro. v. 207 Taylor, Supreme Council of Royal Arcanum v. (C. C. A.).. 66 T. Bing & Co.'s Successors v. United States (C. C.) United States, Gabriel & Schall v. (C. C.) 208 149 194 United States, Hahn v. (C. C.). 152 Tennessee Phosphate Co., Loudenback Fertilizer Co. v. (C. C. A.). 298 United States, Herman & Guinzeberg v. 201 Thayer, Cleland v. (C. C. A.). 71 Thomas, Merchants' Bank of Grenada, United States, Horstmann, Von Hein & 147 Miss., v. (C. C. A.)..... 306 Thompson Co. v. American Lawbook Co. (C. C.) United States, Hunter & Whitcombe v. 207 907 Thompson's Sons. In re (D. C.). 607 United States, I. W. Lyon & Son v. (C. C.) 204 250 Thornhill, The (D. C.).. 889 United States, Merchants' Despatch Tillinghast v. Chace (C. C.). 435 Transp. Co. v. (C. C.).. 443 T. M. Bissell Plow Co., Bissell Chilled 357 United States, Refivy, Schmidt & Pleiss- 441 Toledo, Western Union Tel. Co. v. (C. C. 734 Torrey v. Kelly (C. C. A.).. 542 Travellers' Ins. Co., Black v. (C. C. A.).. 732 United States, Robinson v. (C. C.). 204 546 515 194 901 Turnbull v. New Orleans & C. R. Co. (C. 1022 Tyee Consol. Min. Co. v. Flaherty (C. C. .1022 Tree Consol. Min. Co. v. Frankenson (C. .1022 Tyee Consol. Min. Co. v. Gustson (C. C. A.) .1022 Tyee Consol, Min. Co. v. Isaacson (C. C. .1022 United States, Veit Son & Co. v. (C. C.).. 205 .1021 Tyee Consol. Min. Co. v. Jacobson (C. C. Warren, Central Trust Co. of New York .1022 v. (C. C. A.). 323 UNIV. OF CASES CALIFORNIA ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS AND THE CIRCUIT AND DISTRICT COURTS. EDWARDS v. BEGOLE. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. March 9, 1903.) No. 1,073. 1. PUBLIC LANDS-CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTE-CONFIRMATION OF HOMESTEAD CLAIMS ON FORFEITED RAILROAD GRANT. By Act March 2, 1889 (25 Stat. 1008), forfeiting certain unearned land grants in the state of Michigan, prior sales or dispositions of any of such lands by the Land Department under color of the public land laws were confirmed, with a proviso that "nothing herein contained shall be construed to confirm any sales or entries of lands * upon which there were bona fide pre-emption or homestead claims on the first day of May, 1888, arising or asserted by actual occupation of the land under color of the laws of the United States, and all such pre-emption and homestead claims are hereby confirmed." Held, that the words "actual occupation," as used in the statute, mean residence on the land, and that one who had merely gone upon a tract of the land, and had partly constructed a building thereon, prior to May 1, 1888, with the intention of acquiring title under the homestead law, but who did nothing further until in March, 1889, remaining until that time a resident and voter in another township, was not in the actual occupation of the land on May 1st, and his claim was not confirmed by the act, as against one who prior to his taking up his residence on the land, and after the passage of the act, had filed an application to enter the same as a homestead. 2. SAME-FINDINGS OF FACT BY Land Department-CONCLUSIVENESS. A determination by the Land Department, in a contest between homestead claimants, that one of the parties did not become an actual occupant of the land until a certain date, is one of fact, and conclusive on the courts. & SAME-ABANDONMENT OF CLAIM. One claiming homestead rights in a tract of land as a settler thereon, who acquiesced in the decision of the Land Department adverse to his claim, and thereafter filed a new application to enter the same as a homestead as public land, on the ground that a prior entry thereof by another was invalid, must be regarded as having abandoned his original claim, and cannot thereafter maintain a suit based thereon. 4 SAME-HOMESTEAD SETTLEMENT-LANDS IN UNFORFEited Grant. Under section 3 of Act May 14, 1880, 21 Stat. 141 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1393], giving settlers on public lands, claiming under the homestead laws, the same time to file their homestead applications and to perfect 121 F.-1 their entries as had been previously allowed to settlers under the preemption laws, and providing that their rights should relate back to the ..time of settlement, no rights can be acquired by settlement on land which Is not at the time public land, but the title to which is vested in the state by a prior grant, although such grant is subsequently declared forfeited under power therein reserved. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Michigan. By the first section of the act of Congress of March 2, 1889 (25 Stat. 1008), all lands theretofore granted to the state of Michigan by an act of Congress of June 3, 1856 (11 Stat. 17), to aid in the construction of certain railroads in said state, which were opposite to and coterminous with the uncompleted portion of any of such railroads, were forfeited to the United States, and declared to be a part of the public domain. By that act the state of Michigan had been authorized to dispose of said lands in aid of the construction of said railroads only as the work progressed, and it was provided that, if any of them was not completed within 10 years, no further sales should be made, and the lands unsold should revert to the United States. The construction of certain, if not all, of said railroads, was not begun within said prescribed period of 10 years, and at the time of the passage of the Act of March 2, 1889, portions of certain of said railroads were still uncompleted. And it was in the exercise of the right on the part of the United States to resume the title to the then unearned portions of said grant of June 3, 1856, that said act was passed. The necessity of such or other action on the part of the United States to make said forfeiture clause operative was not understood at first. Indeed, until the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Schulenberg v. Harriman, 21 Wall. 44, 22 L. Ed. 551, delivered in 1874, as to the effect of a like clause of forfeiture in a like grant to the state of Wisconsin, said clause in the Michigan grant was deemed to be automatic, and upon the termination of the 10 years, ipso facto, to put an end to the grant, and restore the unearned lands to the public domain. In 1866, after the expiration of that period, said lands were put upon the market by the Land Department of the United States, and kept there at least until the rendition of said decision. Sales thereof were made to cash entrymen, and selections were made therefrom in aid of the construction of a canal between Portage Lake and Lake Superior under grants made to the state of Michigan in 1865 to 1866, and possibly under the swamp land act and other acts of Congress. Possibly such dispositions of certain of said unearned lands were made even after 1874, and until the passage of said act of March 2, 1889. Possibly, also, sales of portions of said unearned lands had been made to pre-emption and homestead claimants under the pre-emption and homestead laws after the expiration of said 10 years. It is certain that at the time of the passage of said act there were, and for some time prior thereto had been, persons who were looking to the ultimate acquisition of the title to certain of said lands under said laws, some of whom were in the actual occupancy of the lands hoped to be acquired by them. Neither said cash purchasers, nor the holders of said selections, nor the persons expecting to acquire title under the pre-emption or homestead laws, had any interest whatever, legal or equitable, in the lands covered by their respective claims, because of the fact that the legal title thereto was outstanding in the state of Michigan at the time of the transpirance of the things upon which said claims could be based. But Congress recognized that certain of said claimants were entitled to consideration at its hands, and, in view of this, provided by the third section of said act of March, 1889, as follows, to wit: "That in all cases when any of the lands forfeited by the first section of this act or when any lands relinquished to or for any cause resumed by the United States from grants heretofore made to the state of Michigan, have heretofore been disposed of by the proper officers of the United States or under state selections in Michigan, confirmed by the Secretary of the Interior, under color of the public land laws, where the consideration received therefor |