Sidor som bilder
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 The patent to Gleason was three years a jury. No special findings of fact having after the last survey, which, in so far as it been made, and the proceedings in the trial conflicted with the prior survey, superseded court having been approved by the supreme that, and became the official record of the court of the state, without an opinion, we Land Department. Notwithstanding this, must affirm the judgment if there be evi- the patent purports to convey lots 1 and 2 dence sufficient to sustain it, although there as shown by the survey of 1845. Undoubtmay be other testimony of a contradictory edly the mistake arose because the homenature. It is not our province to weigh stead entry, which must have been five conflicting testimony in a case coming to years before the patent, was made before us as this does.

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. 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][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][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 govern. 1875 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 as& 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.

ATLANTIC LUMBER COMPANY, Petitioner, v. WILLIAM A. PAULSEN, Plaintiff in Error, v.

L. BUCKI & SON LUMBER COMPANY. [No. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. [No.

220.] 9.]

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. Mr. S. 8. Gregory for plaintiff in error. See same case below on first appeal, 53 No appearance for defendants in error. C. C. A. 513, 116 Fed. 1, on second appeal,

October 12, 1904. Dismissed, with costs, 63 C. C. A. 73, 128 Fed. 343. pursuant to the Tenth Rule.

Mr. R. H. Liggett for petitioner.

Messrs. H. Bisbee and George C. Bedell EDWARD W. ANDERSON et al., Plaintiffs in

for respondent.

April 11, 1905. Dismissed, with costs, Error, v. BAXTER MORTON. [No. 35.]

In Error to the Court of Appeals of the pursuant to the Tenth Rule. District of Columbia.

NINETEENTH RULE. Mr. West Steever for plaintiffs in error.

FARMERS LOAN & TRUST COMPANY, Trustee, Mr. James S. McDonogh for defendant in

Petitioner, v. LAKE STREET ELEVATED error.

RAILROAD COMPANY. [No. 31.] November 1, 1904. Dismissed, with costs,

On Writ of Certiorari to the United pursuant to the Tenth Rule.

States Circuit Court of Appeals for the

Seventh Circuit. WILLIAM R. LYTLE, Appellant, v. ADOLPHUS

See same case below, 122 Fed. 914. GERALD, Chief of Police of the City of

Mr. I. K. Boyesen for petitioner. Montgomery, Ala. [No. 124.]

Messrs. Charles H. Aldrich and Clarence Appeal from the Circuit Court of the A. Knight for respondent. United States for the Middle District of Ala

October 26, 1904. Dismissed with costs, tama.

pursuant to the Nineteenth Rule. Mr. W. 8. Reese, Jr., for appellant.

ISAAC HUNSAKER, SB., et al., Plaintiffs in No appearance for appellee.

Error, v. TOLTEC RANCH COMPANY. (No. January 9, 1905. Dismissed, with costs,

295.] pursuant to the Tenth Rule.

In Error to the Circuit Court of the

United States for the District of Utah. ROBERT PHILPOT, Appellant, v. FULTON

Mr. Wm. T. S. Curtis for defendant in O'BRION et al. [No. 155.]

error. Appeal from the United States Circuit

No one opposing. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

June 9, 1904. Docketed and dismisscd on Mr. Edmund A. Whitman for appellant.

motion of Mr. Wm. T. 8. Curtis for defendMr. Frank H. Stewart for appellees.

ant in error. January 20, 1905. Dismissed, with costs, pursuant to the Tenth Rule.

UNITED STATES, Plaintiff in Error, v. S. P.

SHOTTER COMPANY. [No. 28.]

In Error to the Circuit Court of the ENOCH HUNSAKER, Plaintiff in Error, v. United States for the Southern District of

TOLTEC RANCH COMPANY. [No. 207.] Alabama.

In Error to the Circuit Court of the The Attorney General for plaintiff in erUnited States for the District of Utah.

ror. Mr. B. Howell Jones for plaintiff in error. Mr. John Ridout for defendant in error. No appearance for defendant in error. October 11, 1904. Dismissed on motion April 5, 1905.

Dismissed, with costs, of Mr. Solicitor General Hoyt for the plainpursuant to the Tenth Rule.

tiff in error. 28 8. C.-50.

785GIOVANNI ZABCONE, Appellant, v. WILLIAM HOUGHTON E. JAMES et al., Appellants, v. WILLIAMS, Commissioner of Immigration, GERMANIA IRON

IRON COMPANY [No. 1]; etc. [No. 101.]

JAMES BELDEN, Appellant, V. MIDWAY Appeal from the Circuit Court of the COMPANY [No. 2]. United States for the Southern District of Appeals from the United States Circuit New York.

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Mr. Alex. Rosenthal for appellant.

See same case below, 46 C. C. A. 476, 107 The Attorney General for appellee. Fed. 597.

October 11, 1904. Dismissed, with costs, Messrs. Frank B. Kellogg and C. A. Severon motion of Mr. Solicitor General Hoyt on ance for appellants. behalf of counsel for appellant.

Dr. Walter Ayers for appellees.

October 11, 1904. Dismissed, with costs, on authority of appellants.

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.

RUFUS BINYON, Plaintiff in Error, v. UNITMessrs. Henry Crawford and John S. Mil- ED STATES. [No. 176.] ler for appellant.

In Error to the United States Court of Mr. John C. Mathis for appellees.

Appeals for the Indian Territory. October 11, 1904. Stricken from the See same case below (Ind. Terr.) 76 S. docket, per stipulation.

W. 265.

Mr. W. A. Green for plaintiff in error.

The Attorney General and Assistant At

torney General Purdy for defendant in erBARBARA WARNER, as Administratrix, etc., ror. Plaintiff in Error, v. CHICAGO & NORTH

October 17, 1904. Dismissed for the want WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY et al. [No. of jurisdiction, on the authority of Brown 161.]

v. United States, 171 U. S. 631, 43 L. ed. In Error to the Circuit Court of the 312, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 56; Cross v. United United States for the District of Nebraska. States, 145 U. S. 571, 36 L. ed. 821, 12 Sup.

Mr. Wm. D. McHugh for plaintiff in Ct. Rep. 842. error.

Mr. H. C. Brome for defendants in error.

October 11, 1904. Dismissed, at cost of defendants in error, per stipulation of counsel.

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 WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY, AP-Pac. 1028. pellant, v. CITY OF TOLEDO et al. [No.

Messrs. Henry C. McPike and A. H. Jar

man for plaintiff in error. Appeal from the United States Circuit

Messrs. U. 8. Webb and Jas. A. CampCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

bell for defendant in error. Messrs. H. D. Estabrook and Jno. W. War- October 17, 1904. Dismissed for the want rington for appellant.

of jurisdiction, but without costs. Mr. U. G. Denman for appellees.

October 11, 1904. Dismissed, with costs, on authority of appellant.

163.]

TACOMA MILL COMPANY, Petitioner, O,

BLACK HILLS & NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY WALTER C. PEACOCK, Appellant, 0. UNITED COMPANY et al. [No. 337.] STATES. [No. 177.]

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Appeal from the United States Circuit United States Circuit Court of Appeals for Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. the Ninth Circuit. Mr. Oliver Dibble for appellant.

Messrs. Frederic D. McKenney, James A. The Attorney General for appellee. Ashton, and E. C. Hughes for petitioner.

October 11, 1904. Dismissed, per stipula- Mr. James B. Howe for respondents. tion.

October 17, 1904. Granted.

Thomas F. CURLEY et al., Petitioners, v. WILLIAM H. FLANNERY et al., Petitioners, t. UNITED STATES. [No. 236.]

IsaAO B. LEWIS. [No. 277.] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

the Second Circuit. See same case below, 64 C. C. A. 369, 130 See same case below, 64 C. C. A. 582, 130 Fed. l.

Fed. 336. Mr. Henian W. Chaplin for petitioners. Messrs. James J. Macklin, La Roy S. Gove,

The Attorney General and Solicitor Gen- and Robert D. Benedict for petitioners. eral Hoyt for respondent.

Mr. Herbert Green for respondent. October 17, 1904. Denied.

October 17, 1904. Denied.

ÆTNA INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, 0.

ISAAC B. LEWIS. [No. 278.] BETTENDORF PATENTS COMPANY, Petitioner,

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the V. J. R. LITTLE METAL WHEEL COMPANY.

United States Circuit Court of Appeals for [No. 253.]

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

See same case below, 64 C. C. A. 210, 129

Fed. 1006. the Seventh Circuit. See same case below, 59 C. C. A. 473, 123

Mr. La Roy S. Gove for petitioner,

Mr. Herbert Green for respondent.
Fed. 433.

October 17, 1904. Denied.
Mr. James 8. Harlan for petitioner.
Mr. John R. Bennett for respondent.
October 17, 1904. Denied.

MUNICH ASSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED, et

al., Petitioners, v. DODWELL & COMPANY, LIMITED. [No. 284.]

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the WILLIAM BURRILL et al., Petitioners, v. United States Circuit Court of Appeals for

GEORGE W. CROSSMAN et al. [No. 258.] | the Ninth Circuit.
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the

See same case below, 63 C. C. A. 152, 128 United States Circuit Court of Appeals for Fed. 410. the Second Circuit.

Mr. Milton Andros for petitioners. See same case below, 130 Fed. 763.

Messrs. Charles Page and E. J. McCutchMr. Laurence Kneeland for petitioners.

en for respondent. Mr. Everett P. Wheeler for respondents.

October 17, 1904. Denied. October 17, 1904. Denied.

PORTLAND FLOURING MILLS COMPANY, Pe

titioner, 0. BRITISH & FOREIGN MARINE WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Pe- INSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED. [No. 310.)

titioner, v. CHARLES J. Swan. [No. 268.] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the

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

See same case below, 65 C. C. A. 344, 130 See same case below, 67 L. R. A. 153, 63 Fed. 860. C. C. A. 550, 129 Fed. 318.

Messrs. C. E. S. Wood, Geo. H. Williams, Messrs. H. D. Estabrook and H. N. Low A. B. Browne, and T'hos. D. Rambaut for pefor petitioner.

titioner. Mr. Henry Calver for respondent.

Messrs. Zera Snow and Wallace M. Mo October 17, 1904. Denied.

Camant for respondent.

October 17, 1904. Denied.

COMPANY,

JOHN T. ANDREWS, Petitioner, 0. CHICAGO BUNKER HILL & SULLIVAN MINING & CON& NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY. CENTRATING

Petitioner, [No. 276.]

CHARLES T. JONES. [No. 318.] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

the Ninth Circuit. See same case below, 64 C. C. A. 399, 130 See same case below, 130 Fed. 813. Fed. 65.

Mr. Myron A. Folsom for petitioner. Mr. A. C. Parker for petitioner.

Messrs. Thomas O'Day and F. C. RobMr. James C. Davis for respondent. ertson for respondent. October 17, 1904. Denied.

October 17, 1904. Denied.

« FöregåendeFortsätt »