Opinion of the Court. claiming under them to apply hereafter to the courts or to Congress for any legal or equitable relief to which they may now be entitled." It will be borne in mind that it is "this act"—not the forfeiture, not the confirmation, nor any separate provision of the act, but the act as a whole, including therein both forfeiture and confirmation, which is not to work any prejudice. Obviously the clause quoted does not exclude the idea of some confirmation, but means simply that neither forfeiture nor confirmation, nor any other provision in the act, shall be construed as a final settlement of all the claims, legal and equitable, of the companies or their grantees. If, for instance, the canal company, accepting the confirmation provided by section 3, should fail of getting all the lands selected and certified to it, and so receiving the full amount of the grant, (as from the conclusion we have reached in this particular case it seems that it does,) then its acceptance is not to be taken as an estoppel against any subsequent claim to Congress for the deficiency caused thereby. So if, between any of the parties affected by this confirmation, there should be controversies in which on the part of one or the other there were any legal or equitable claims not arising out of this confirmatory legislation of Congress, they were not to be cluded from litigating such claims in the courts. In other words, the confirmation is in such a case to be regarded as nothing but a confirmation, and without further effect or significance. pre The second matter which the act was not to prejudice was "any right of forfeiture, as hereby declared, or recovery of the United States in respect of any of the lands claimed by said companies." The meaning of this clause is not so clear. A reasonable construction is that all the provisions in the act, including both the forfeiture and the special confirmation named in section three, are not to prejudice any right of recovery which the United States may have as against any lands claimed by the companies. That is, if there be any lands within the scope of the original railroad grant of 1856, to which any or either of these companies make any claims, and which are not clearly protected by the confirmation men Opinion of the Court. tioned in the third section, the full rights of the government in respect to such lands may be enforced irrespective of such section. While the language is a little obscure, it ought not to be construed as denying the confirmation which seems to be granted by the third section, and those words in that, which are reasonably clear in their meaning, should not be overthrown by language of doubtful import like this. The only other construction would exclude the companies named from any benefit of the confirmatory provisions. This construction would, of course, compel an affirmance of this judgment as showing that the plaintiff had no title to the land, and was, therefore, in no position to question the defendant's posses sion. The third matter is that the act shall not be construed "to the prejudice of the right of any person claiming adversely to said companies or their assigns, under the laws of the United States." This means that the confirmation to the companies shall not be taken as an attempt to invalidate any legal or equitable rights of any one as against such companies. If anything had happened through contract, or otherwise, giving to the individual a legal or an equitable claim as against the companies, such legal or equitable right was not to be affected by anything in this act. But that, so far from conflicting with the idea of a confirmation, rather assumes that there is one, and aims to determine its effect rather than deny its existence. There is, therefore, nothing in any of these provisions to overthrow the construction given to the third section, or which conflicts with the confirmation therein provided. We pass, therefore, finally to the question of fact in respect to the defendant's homestead claim. It appears that he entered upon the lands in March, 1888, but did not attempt to make an entry in the land office until May 25, 1888. While the term "homestead claim" is sometimes used to denote the mere formal application at the local land office, obviously this is not the purport of the term as used in this section, for it is defined by the succeeding words, "arising or asserted by actual occupation of the land." This obviously includes cases in which the party was, on the 1st of May, 1888, in the actual Opinion of the Court. occupation of the land, with a view of making a homestead of it under the laws of the United States. But it is said by the counsel for the company that it was not a bona fide homestead claim because at the time the defendant entered upon the land he understood that it was a part of a railroad grant. The testimony of the defendant is all that there is bearing upon the question of bona fides. And while it appears from his testimony that he understood at the time of his entry that it was land embraced within a railroad land grant, he also testifies that he expected that the grant would be removed and that he could then enter the land, and that he went there for the purpose of making it a home. Now, it may be true as a general proposition that a man cannot move upon land which he knows belongs to another and establish a bona fide claim by such wrongful entry, but we do not think that that rule is applicable to the case at bar. The sense in which "bona fide" is used in this clause is indicated by the provision in the one preceding as to cash purchasers. Their purchases were to be protected if made "without fraud and in the belief that they were thereby obtaining valid title from the United States." It does not appear that he knew the exact condition of the outstanding claims. If he did, he knew that this railroad grant had been outstanding thirtytwo years, that the land was to be restored to the government if the road was not completed within ten years, and that twenty-two years had passed since the time fixed by Congress for the completion of the road, and nothing had been done. His expectation was (and under the circumstances not an unreasonable one) that Congress would at some near time interfere to remove all this outstanding claim. Under those circumstances, and in expectation of such removal, he enters upon the land. Can it be said that this entry and occupation was with a view of depriving anybody of title, or that it was, as against the company, a wrongful entry? If the construction contended for were accepted, it would exclude from the benefit of the act any settler upon these lands who knew that the land he entered upon was within the railroad grant. But legislation respecting public Opinion of the Court. lands is to be construed favorably to the actual settler, and the construction contended for by the canal company seems to us too narrow. If a party entering upon a tract, although he knew that it was within the limits of an old railroad grant, did so under the honest belief and expectation that that grant, if not technically extinguished by lapse of time, had remained so long unappropriated by any beneficiary that Congress would shortly resume it, and in that belief determined to make for himself a home thereon, with a view of perfecting his title under the land laws of the United States when the forfeiture should be finally declared, it must be held, we think, that he is, within the terms of this confirmatory act, a bona fide claimant of a homestead. The ruling of the Circuit Court was correct, and the judgment in favor of the defendant is Affirmed. LAKE SUPERIOR SHIP CANAL, RAILWAY AND IRON COMPANY v. FINAN. Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Michigan. No. 50. Argued November 2, 5, 1894. Decided December 10, 1894. MR. JUSTICE BREWER. This case differs from the preceding, in that the action was commenced March 21, 1889, and that Finan, the defendant, did not enter upon the tract in controversy until after the 1st of May, 1888. His entry and occupation gave him no rights to the land, because it was embraced within the railroad grant of 1856. He took nothing under the confirmatory act of 1889, because he was not a bona fide claimant or in actual occupation on the 1st of May, 1888. The land was selected and certified to the State for the benefit of the canal company, and was within the scope of the confirmation to the company by the act of 1889. The title of the company was, therefore, perfect as against him. The judgment of the Circuit Court must, therefore, be Reversed, and the case remanded for a new trial. Mr. John F. Dillon for plaintiff in error. Mr. Don M. Dickinson for defendant in error. VOL. CLV-25 Opinion of the Court. DONAHUE v. LAKE SUPERIOR SHIP CANAL, RAILWAY AND IRON COMPANY. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN. No. 51. Argued November 2, 5, 1894. — Decided December 10, 1894. This case is governed by the rule laid down in Lake Superior Canal &c. Co. v. Cunningham, ante, 354; but, as the land in controversy is near the crossing of two lines that had received separate grants, it is further subject to the rule that where two lines of road are aided by land grants made by the same act, and the lines of those roads cross or intersect, the lands within the "place" limits of both at the crossing or intersection do not pass to either company in preference to the other, no matter which line may be first located, or built, but pass in equal undivided moieties to each. THE case is stated in the opinion. Mr. Don M. Dickinson for plaintiff in error. Mr. John F. Dillon, (with whom was Mr. Daniel H. Ball on the brief,) for defendant in error. MR. JUSTICE BREWER delivered the opinion of the court. The land in controversy in this case, as that in controversy in the two prior cases, is a tract which was certified to the State of Michigan on December 12, 1861, as part of the railroad grant, and afterwards, in 1871, again certified to the State in part satisfaction of the canal grant. Donahue, the plaintiff in error, entered upon the land in February, 1883, and has ever since remained in possession. He entered with the view of preempting, and made his first application under the preemption laws on April 11, 1883. His application was rejected by the local office, from which rejection he appealed to the Commissioner of the General Land Office, and the appeal is still pending in the department. His entry and occupation were such as within the opinion in the Cunningham |