Are to be kept at the surveyor-general's office, and at the local and general land office for public information...
Markings on the official plats, showing land as saline, swamp, mineral, or timbered. do not absolutely reserve it from claims if in fact it is proved to be not of the character described
Copies of plats; seo Fees.
As to use of plats by the public, see under Land Department.
Agricultural land in mineral regions; see under Mineral Land. PRICE.
Lands raised to double minimum on ac- count of railroad grants, and put in market prior to January 1861, were reduced to single minimum by Sec. 3, Act of June 15, 1880; said act required a public offering before en- try; where sales were afterwards allowed without such offering, or made at double- minium, they were confirmed by the act of March 3,1883...
The price of the alternate reserved sec- tions along the line of railroads was fixed by statute (Sec. 2357, R. S.) at double mini- mum, which has not since been changed... 681 Decision, holding for cancellation an entry at $1.25 made in an even section prior to re- ceipt of notice of executive withdrawal for railroad purposes, is reversed
Though certain odd sections within the limits of the Northern Pacific Railroad did not pass by the grant, because at its dato within the limits of the Bitter Root Valley reservation, they are nevertheless fixed at double minimum
On the theory that the Northern Pacific Railroad Company is entitled to indemnity for lands within reservations existing at date of the grant, if the even sections are sold at single minimum, the government suffers financial loss.
Lands in the San Francisco district, with- drawn for the Central Pacific Railroad, were held not to inure to that company; before res-
Where an isolated tract has been sur- veyed at the instance of a person who has deposited the expenses of advertising and of- fering, under Sec. 2455, R. S., it is not sub- ject to soldiers' additional entry.
"Sales of public lands," in all laws relat- ing to public lands, means cash sales; fees are not part of the price of land See Payment and Repayment. IMPROVEMENTS.
On land embraced by an uncanceled en- try give no right...
Sale of improvements on a claim (home- stead and donation) is evidence of the claim- ant's abandonment
POSSESSION.
Of mines, see Mining Claim.
The Atherton-Fowler doctrine applies to a case where a bona-fide homestead entry and improvement (of which the adverse claimant had notice) of a quarter-section of surveyed land gave a legal possessory right,
A settled in July 1881, on land not subject to homestead or pre-emption, and thereafter resided on and improved it; the land was opened to settlers on December 14, 1882; on January 6, 1883, B made homestead entry, and on March 15, 1883. A filed pre-emption declaratory statement, which was rejected by the local office because of B's claim of record and A's failure to file as required by law; B's entry was relinquished April 23, 1883, and on the same day C made homestead entry; held that A was protected by the rule in Atherton v. Fowler....
Circular of July 1, 1879, declaring invalid entry on land in the possession of a settler, protected the contestant under it until it was revoked
Peaceable settlement may lawfully be made on a part of a forty already settled on by another, but not in his actual posses- sion by inclosure or otherwise..
The Atherton-Fowler doctrine is not to be extended to cases where the prior settler is a mere trespasser, or has disregarded statu- tory requirements.... Where the claim (pre-emption) is rejected finally, further occupation of the land by the claimant is a trespass
A made pre-emption filing May 4, 1879; B made entry (timber-culture) January 13, 1882; A gave notice January 30, 1882, of his intention to make final proof April 8, 1882 (thirty-five months after filing); held that A had forfeited his right, as against B, by failure to make final proof in time..........
Taking possession of and improving land, relying upon the erroneous statement of an attorney, without initiating legal claim to it, gave no right against soldiers' additional homestead entries subsequently allowed... 56 Where one went upon public land as the tenant of another, who has absented himself without claim to it, he may make entry of it in the absence of fraud
One will not be permitted, in the face of a contest for default against his timber-cul- ture entry, to assert a homestead right ini. tiated (by building and improving) while the tract was covered by said entry....
Where one makes entry (homestead) of a tract, but settles on another intentionally, and fails to use diligence in appropriating it lawfully (amended entry), he is a tres- passer on the second tract, and a third per- son is not bound by notice of his homestead settlement and improvements
Where there have been bona-fide resi dence and cultivation by donation settlers (New Mexico), whose claims are, however, invalid, they should have opportunity to save their improvements, if they have not ex- hausted their right to acquire land under other laws ..410, 411, 412
Where a settler has properly initiated a claim to a tract, of which he has retained possession, though he has failed to do the things necessary to the acquisition of title, another settler, on an adjacent tract, cannot by a mere verbal claim, or without attempt- ing to reduce the tract to possession, acquire any right to it.... ..186, 637 Bona-fide occupation and improvement of land bars a subsequent application under the timber and stone act..
Doctrine of "innocent purchaser" in re- lation to sale of land claims; see Fraud. Of improvements on the public lands; see under Public Land.
Of relinquishments; see Relinquishment. Of timber illegally cut from the public domain; see under Timber Cutting.
Of homestead entries under act of June 15, 1880; see under Homestead.
Railroad.
CENTRAL PACIFIC.
Lands within the San Francisco, Cal., trict did not inure to the road...... .679, 681 The Central Pacific assigned to the West- ern Pacific the right to construct the road between San José and Sacramento, and Con. gress ratified the assignment March 3, 1865; the lands involved are held under the terms of the original act, and not as of date of said ratification.....
The act of May 6, 1870, was a present grant of a right of way, absolute and uncon. ditional, to the Central and Union Pacific Roads, conveying certain specified tracts; A filed a pre-emption claim on one of said tracts May 19, 1869, and relinquished it March 29, 1871, on which day B made home- stead entry thereon; held tha, as there was no privity between B and A, B's case was not within the provision of said act protect- ing the rights of private persons..... NORTHERN PACIFIC.
Whether the provision in the resolution of May 31, 1870, relating to the time for the
completion of that portion of the main line between the western terminus and Portland, affected or abrogated existing legislation as to the time for the completion of the other portions of the main line, quære........
On May 17, 1883, the Secretary declined to withdraw from settlement any portion of the odd sections lying within the second in- demnity limits in the Territories, on the ground that withdrawal is not at present necessary for the company's protection .... 511 SAINT PAUL & PACIFIC.
The grant in aid of the Saint Paul and Pacific Railroad, under act of March 3, 1857, was adjusted along the main line as far west as Range 38 in 1863; the lands to which the company was entitled were certified to it, and those not needed to satisfy the grant were restored to market by public offering under proclamation No. 700, dated April 18, 1864, and the offering was made September 5, 1864... SOUTHERN PACIFIC.
Lands within the San Francisco, Cal., district did not inure to the Central Pacific, though withdrawn; prior to restoration they were embraced by the grant to the Southern Pacific, but it was held that they were excepted therefrom... ..679, 681
The right to either granted or indemnity land, of actual settlers, on June 28, 1870, though settlement was made after with- drawal, was saved by the joint resolution of that date, authorizing a construction of the road on the route indicated by the map filed in 1867...
Act of May 6, 1870; see Central Pacific, supra.
When the language imports a present grant, title passes by the act and attaches to the grant, and such title becomes complete and perfect when precision and identity are given to the particular tract by selection or location of the land.
By the act of June 3, 1856, title to land in intersecting limits passed to the State of Alabama upon definite location of the road first located...
The right of the State (Kansas) and of the company (St.Joseph and Denver) attached to the granted lands when the route of the road was definitely fixed (i. e., when the map was filed and accepted)....
Title to the Western Pacific Company (and its successors), assignees of the Central Pa cific, did not pass as of date of act March 3, 1865, which was merely a ratification of the assignment
The object of the law is to give the com- pany (Northern Pacific) within the entire indemnity belt just what has been lost in place, by other appropriation within the granted limits, to the amount of lands in- tended to be granted, and no more........ 514 If the company (Northern Pacific) neg- lects to make its selection, and uses the prior or subsequent withdrawals for the purpose of defeating the operation of the settlement laws, it will be the duty of the Department to revoke the withdrawals.....
It is discretionary with the Secretary whether he will permit the company (North- ern Pacific) to select lands occupied by bona- fide settlers, and he may protect such occu- pants so far as it can be done consistently with law and a due regard to the company's rights.
Where the grant (to Florida) designated neither even nor odd sections, the company (Alantic, Gulf & West India Transit) elected to take odd sections...
The granting act of 1856 (Alabama) with- held from the State power to dispose of the granted lands except as the several roads were constructed, and such a tenancy in common was created in trust in favor of the several intersecting roads as to deprive the State of power to confer the grant on one, or to dispose of it for the benefit of one to the exclusion of the others......
Whether the only power of disposal in the State (Alabama) was to make distribution for quantity to extent of lands earned by a completed road, leaving the residue, either as an undivided share or segregated by act of partition, for future disposal in favor of any intersecting road as completed; or whether the State may set over lands outside of in- tersecting lines for the benefit of that road only to which they properly attach, and may apportion lands within intersecting lines, as purely a matter of State concern, subject only to judicial and legislative control; quære
Prior to March 3, 1865, the disposal of lands granted to Minnesota, as in other States, was governed by the act of March 3, 1857, namely, that on completion of specifio sections the quantity of land as described "may be sold," and certification was the
Page. uniform mode of identification; the act of March 3, 1865, requiring patents to issue upon completion of the sections gave no di- rection as to the manner of disposal by the State; but by the act of July 13, 1866, the power of disposal by the State was expressly recognized to take effect after definite loca- tion and identification of the lands by cer- tification AMENDING ACT.
Enlarging the grant (Minnesota) subject to the limitations in the original grant takes effect by relation as of date of the original grant against the United States only, and the enlarged grant is subject to all reserva- tions by way of pre-emption, homestead, or other lawful claims....
Attaching a further condition to a grant (Pacific roads), requiring payment for sur- vey and selection, prior to the vesting of title, is upheld by the Supreme Court...... 670 FORFEITURE.
The failure of Congress to take action, though its attention has been called to tho fact that large tracts of land are reserved by withdrawals for uncompleted roads, is ac- cepted as an expression of the legislative will that the decisions of the courts and the opinions of attorneys-general upon the points involved (that the grants must be held intact) shall be a guide to the Secretary in administering the law....
The Central Pacific (successors to the Cal- ifornia and Oregon) Company have failed to complete their road in the prescribed time (July 1, 1880), but as Congress has not de- clared the consequent forfeiture provided in the granting act, patents must issue for the granted lands, as they are earned by the con- struction and acceptance of a portion of the road....
The additional provision that, on failure to complete the road (Central Pacific) in the prescribed time, the granting "act shall be null and void," adds nothing to the legal effect of the forfeiture clause
If the whole of the proposed road (Saint Joseph and Denver) has not been completed, any forfeiture thereon can only be asserted by the grantor, the United States, through judicial proceedings or through the action of Congress
No proceedings can be taken, even by Con- gress, to declare a forfeiture of the North- ern Pacific grant until one year after the time fixed for the completion of the road (July 4, 1880)....
INTERSECTING LINES.
See Title and Power of disposal (supra) and Railroad (Central Pacific.)
The provision in the appropriation act of July 30, 1876, requiring payment by railroad companies of the cost of surveying, select-
A selection by the company intact upon the records, although invalid (land not sub- ject to selection), bars a homestead entry.. 504 A selection of lieu lands under act of June 22, 1874, invalid for want of a prior formal relinquishment, does not bar an entry (home- stead)....
For comparison with other selections, see State Grants and Swamp Grant. Compare with Certification, infra. CERTIFICATION.
The general rule applicable to grants to States for railroad purposes, in respect of title by patent or certification, is found in Sec. 2449, R. S......
After certification, it is the duty of the Land Department to issue the patents; when issued they take effect by relation as of date of the certification and cut off inter- vening claims
Where title (to granted or indemnity lands in Minnesota) passed by certification, all control of the Executive Department over the title thereafter ceased.
Certification of certain lands to the State of Minnesota, under act of July 13, 1866, perfected the title in the State, and patent was not necessary for that purpose...
The tract in question was within the terms of the act of 1856 (grant to Iowa), and when it was selected and the selection approved and certified by the Commissioner of the General Land Office, the title became perfect in the State
The State (Alabama) is entitled to have certification of certain lands granted June 3, 1856, lying within the intersecting lines of a completed and of an uncompleted road, for the purpose of identification, leaving questions of reversionary right to be de- clared on by Congress...
Compare with Selection, supra, and with State Grants.
EXECUTIVE WITHDRAWAL.
An executive withdrawal of lands from private entry is sufficient to defeat a settle- ment for the purpose of pre-emption while the order is in force, notwithstanding the law under which it was made did not con- template such withdrawal.................
It is the duty of the Land Department to give timely notice, by prompt withdrawal, of the date and extent of the granted lim. its, for the protection of both company and settlers.....
Entries made prior to receipt at the local office of the executive withdrawal, on pre- liminary line, except the tracts from the grant (Northern Pacific)
The executive withdrawal (Atlantic,
Where after date of grant (Texas and Pa- cific) withdrawal (on preliminary line) was made, covering land for which had been filed an application to purchase (Sec. 7, Act July 13, 1866), and the land embraced in the application was afterwards suspended from sale pending its consideration, the with- drawal was not affected by said suspension. 549 When executive withdrawal of granted or indemnity lands is made in general terms, it only withdraws from market the "public lands" lying within the limits mentioned.. 507 The power of the Department to withdraw the granted lands, without any direction ex. pressed in the act, is well settled; its pur- pose is to prevent a defeat of the grant by private appropriation; and the authority to withdraw the indemnity lands must follow. 514 After withdrawal (indemnity) the Land Department retained jurisdiction of tracts covered by entries and pre-emptions at the time the withdrawal was made
Where an entry (homestead) existed at date of the withdrawal (indemnity), on can- cellation thereafter the tract does not fall within the ban of the withdrawal
Withdrawal of indemnity lands (for Northern Pacific) is made in the sound dis- cretion of the Department, so as to subserve the purposes of the grant. GENERAL ROUTE.
Where entry (homestead) was made on the same day as that on which the map of gen- eral route (Northern Pacific) was filed, the tract was excepted from the withdrawal; on subsequent relinquishment, on erroneous ruling of the local office (as alleged) it be- came public and was embraced in the with- drawal on amended line of general route... 569 Where several maps were filed, and with- drawals under them made, only that map finally fixing the general route created a legislative withdrawal; the former with- drawals were Executive, and took effect on receipt of notice thereof at the local office.. 554
Where settlement was made after receipt of notice of withdrawal on general route (Northern Pacific) on unsurveyed land, which was found on survey to be on an odd section, and a subsequent withdrawal on amended may embraced the land, the entry (homestead) is disallowed; (see also p. 557).. 551 Where the tract was covered by an en- try (homestead) at date of withdrawal (1870) on general route (Northern Pacific), and was afterwards (1872) relinquished and the entry canceled, it fell into the subse- quent withdrawal (1880) for indemnity pur- poses on definite location........
Where the tract was excepted by a claim (filing) from the withdrawal on general route (Northern Pacific), but was afterwards actually abandoned on erroneous informa- tion given by the local officers, it thereupon became public, and passed to the company on definite location ..474, 570
Where an entry (homestead) existed at date of filing map of general route (North- ern Pacific), which was afterwards, but be- fore definite location, canceled for voluntary relinquishment, the land became public and open to the first legal applicant, and is not to be held to await the definite location... 536 Withdrawal on general route (Northern Pacific) took effect on lands (unsurveyed) which were within the limits of an Indian reservation (in Montana), upon subsequent extinguishment by executive order of the right of Indian occupancy DEFINITE LOCATION.
When a route is adopted by the company (Saint Joseph and Denver), and a map des- ignating it is filed with the Secretary of the Interior (as required by the granting act), and accepted by that officer, the route is es- tablished; it is, in the language of the act, "definitely fixed".
Where the act required the governor of the State (Iowa) to file a map of definite location, held that a map certified and filed by the president and chief engineer of the company (McGregor and Missouri River) was sufficient. ...... 567
The act did not require the filing of a map of definite location; the road being definitely located on the ground from Waldo to Tampa Bay, such a map was filed in 1860, certified by the officers of the company, but, lacking the governor's signature, was returned in 1861 for that purpose, and was lost; a dupli- cate map was filed in 1875, but was not ap- proved until 1881; held that the original map was due notice of the definite location of the road (Atlantic, Gulf and West India
« PrejšnjaNaprej » |