ſ**sº
º?f# is
DIGEST OF DECISIONS
OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
AND
GENERAL LAND OFFICE
IN
CASES RELATING TO PUBLIC LANI)S
WoLUMEs 1 To 10, INCLUSIVE.
Prepared by S. V. P R O U D FIT,
REPORTER OF LAND DECISIONS.
WASHINGTON:
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE,
1891.
TABLE OF CASES REPORTED.
A.
VOLUME 1.
Page.
Ackroyd, Levi --------------------- tº e º gº tº gº 481
Adams, Martin A------------------------ 24
Aiken, James ---------------------------- 462
Alabama and Chattanooga R. R. Co. . .343,374, 376
Alari, State of California v..... tº e º ºs e º ºs ºn tº sº 407,453
Anderson, Annie. ------------- is a m = m º ºs ºn tº as tº 24
Anderson, Andrew, et al ----------------- 1
Anton Chico----------------------------- 287
Arant v. State of Oregon ---------------- 515
Arnold v. Langley - - - - - - - - - - as e s gº tº tº se tº sº e º º sº 439
Atlantic and Pacific R. R. Co ------------ 308
Atlantic and Pacific R. R. Co., v. Fisher.-- 392
Atlantic and Pacific R. R. Co., McGrath o 328
Atlantic and Pacific R. R.Co., Gonzales v. 361
Atlantic and Pacific R. R. Co., v. Forrester 475
Atlantic, Gulf, and West India Transit
Co., Martin v--------------------------- 359
Attwell v. Oregon Rwy. and Navigation
Co. ----------------------------- tº º tº as tº ſº tº 294
Aubrey v. Clapp ------------------------- 489
VOLUME 2.
Aasland v. Slater -----------------------. 299
Abrita, Manuel -------------------------- 385
Alabama Railroad Lands ---------------- 475
Alabama and Chattanooga R. R. Co., v.
Uptain. --. ----------------------------- 500
Alabama, South and North R. R. Co. ----. 884, 681
Albuquerque, town of -----------------. 413, 419
Alderson, William N. B. --...------------. 815
Aldrich v. Anderson --------------------- 71
Allsop v. Dumas ------ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * e º 'º e 82
Alteholz, Jacob -------------------------. 656
Amley v. Sando -------------------------- 142
Anderson, Aldrich v ------------------- tº as 71
Anderson, Goodnight v ------------ * * * * * * 624
Anderson v. Slater----------------- tº gº tº e º 'º 299
Andrews, McKittrick and ...... tº º ºs º gº e º a º 638
Arant v. State of Oregon.--------------.. 641
Arnold, William A.---------------- tº e º as gº º 758
Arnold v. Coffey ------------------------. 111
Arnold, Condon v ----------------------. 96
Arsenal Island -------------------------. 456, 468
Ascension Parish Church ... -- {º º ºs º is tº gº º & ºt 390
Atlantic and Pacific R. R. Co - - - - - - - - - - - - 522
Atlantic and Pacific R. R. Co., Meredith v 499
Page.
561
531
535
75
706
257
575
186
315
242
44
529
276
467
558
13
391
488
Atlantic, Gulf and West India Transit
Atlantic, Gulf and West India Transit
R. R. Co., v. Carlton and Steele
Atlantic, Gulf and West India Transit
R. R. Co., v. Martin.--------------------
Austin v. Hunt
“A. Y." Lode.---------------------------
Ayers v. Buell and Connally
Ayers, Sederquist v.------------...-----
VOLUME 3.
Abrams, J. H. -------------------------- tº e
Adair v. Neal ----------------- tº e º me º a tº e º sº gº
Adamson, John A.-----------------------
Ah Wing et al
Atlantic, Gulf and West Indies Transit
Co. v. Bessent --------------------------
Alabama, State of.------------------ tº gº tº dº ſº
Alabama and Chattanooga R. R..........
Altio, Lettrieus.--------------------- tº tº gº tº
Anderson, Erickson v.--...----------....
Atlantic and Paclfic R. R. Co. v. Buck-
TD8D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * g is
Arant v. State of Oregon. ---------------.
Arsenal Island
Aspen Town Site ------------------------
Avery, William T
VOLUME 4.
Abbas v. Von Zee et al. - - - - - - -...--...-----
Albion Consolidated Mining Co., St. Law-
rence Mining Co. et al. v.-------...-----
Albion Consolidated Mining Co..........
Aldred, Sarmuel
Alice Placer Mine
Altimus, Litten v
Arkansas, State of.----------------...--.
Arwood, George W., et al............... ſe
Atlantic and Pacific R. R. Co tº
Atlantic and Pacific R. R. Co. v. McCabe.
Atlantic and Pacific R. R. Co. v. Pate.....
Austin v. Norin--------------------------
tº a º ºs º º ºs º e º sº e s = º e º ºs ºs e º ſº s
VOLUME 5.
Abbott, Lucy B.------------------------.
Alabama and Chattanooga R. R. Co. v.
Tennessee and Coosa R. R. Co..........
Aldred, Samuel
gº º ºs º º º ºn tº e º º is ſº ºn tº º ſº tº e º gº s º ºs º º
117
376
25
314
512
295
23
458
52
461
677
582
103
4
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
Alexander et al., Commissioners of Kings
County v. ....
Allen v. Cooley .... ----------------------
Alrio, Lettrieus (A. E. Sompay rac)
A. M. Holter Lode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . --.
American Investment Company
Anderson v. Anderson
Anderson v. Hamilton
Andrus, Crow v. --...--------------------.
Arey, Cassidy v. -------------------------
Arkansas, State of.......... --...--...-----
Arnold, Young v------------------------.
Atlantic and Pacific R. R. Co
* * * * * * * * *
s = * * g º gº tº gº tº s is º ºs e s sº º is
VOLUME 6.
Abercrombie, Nicholas........ * * is as s sº e s m a. s.
Adams, Nancy E.-----------------------.
Adams, William H. .... ** s as s m = m = * * * * * * * * = ſº
Alabama, State of..... --...---------------
Alabama and Chattanooga R. R. Co......
Alabama and Chattanooga R. R. Co. v.
Clabourn . . . . . . . . .---------------------
Alden et al., Kearney v. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.
Allen, Adelphi.--------...--------------.
Allen v. Baird.-----------------, ---------
Allen v. Leet-----------------------------
Allen v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co........
Alice Edith Lode ------...----...----------.
Almy, Sears v----------------------------
American Flag Lode --...----------------
Anderson, Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. . .
Anderson, Swanson v
Arnold v. Hildreth ----------------------.
Arnold, Schrotberger v
Asher, Cowan v -----------------...------.
Asher, Morris. --------...-...------------.
Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fé R. R. Co.,
3 arriques v. ----------------------...--.
Atlantic and Pacific R. R. Co. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Atlantic and Pacifle; R. R. Co. r. Howard .
Atlantic and Pacific R. R. Co., Rogers v..
Austin v. Thomas
s = * * * * is sº sº as tº a s nº ºf a $ sº e s s sº ºn 8
VOLUME 7.
Abrams, Sutton et al. v. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Adams, Milo ----------------------------.
Allen, Andrew J -------------------------
Allen v. Curtius. ------------------------.
Anderson v. Bailey. --------. . . . . --------.
Anderson v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co. et
Andrews v. Cory ---...--------...----------
Archibald A. R.------------------------.
Arnold v. Hildreth (on review) - - - - - - - - - -
Arter, Maria C. . . . . . . . . . • * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Atlantic and Pacific R. R. Co., Payne v. . .
Avery et al., Pratt v
sº º ºs s m º ºs º gº as a tº a sº sº sº a sº sº tº s
VOLUME 8.
Adair, Joseph M. ----------...-----------
Alabama and Chattanooga R. R. Co......
Alderson, John W .......................
Allen, Gerard B.------------------------.
Allen et al. v. Merrill et al...............
Alta Mill Site.---------------------------
Page.
126
261
158,613
255
603
393
705
745
493
84, 92
427
579
420
298
669
520
711
320
677
550
779
425
425
543
84
140
565
330
136
197
545
444
513
163
89
58
500
136
405
554
200
33
517
140
207
195
Page.
Amundson, Chicago, Milwaukee and St.
Paul Ry. Co. v. ----------------------- 291
Anderson et al. n. Byam et al.............. 388
Anderson, Smith v .----...---...--------.. 46
Anrys, Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v...... e 362
Antediluvian Lode and Mill Site......... 602
Arkansas, State of ...... --...--...--.... 387
Armstrong v. Taylor et al - - - - - - -----..... 598
Arnold, Dotson et al. v ................... 439
Asher v. Holmes ------------------------- 396
Atlantic and Pacific R. R. Co - ........ 165, 307, 373
Atterbery et al., United States v ......... 173
Avery et al., Pratt v. (on review).----.... 357
VOLUME 9.
Adler, Joseph. --------------------------. 429
Alabama, State of.......----------------- 458
Allen, Chichester -----------------------. 302
Allen v. Smith---------------------------. 288
Allers v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co. --...--. 452
Alta Mill Site (on review). . . . . . * * * * * * * * * * 48
Amundson, Saben v ---------------------. 578
Andas v. Williams ----------------------- 311
Anderson v. Bailey (on review) ---...--... 585
Anderson et al. v. Byam et al. (on review). 215, 295
Anderson, Sapp v ------------------------ 165
Anderson, Swanson v. (On review). ---...- 668
Armijo, Atlantic and Pacific R. R. Co.... 427
Artis, Laffoon v . . . . . --------------------. 279
Atlantic and Pacific R. R. v. Arm jo.--... 427
Atlantic and Pacific R. R. Co. v. Sanchez- 71.
Aurora Hill Milling Co. v. Tangerman et
al. v.------------------------------------ 538
VOLUME 10.
Ackerson 9. Dean -----------------------. 477
Adair, Joseph M. (on review). -----------. 642
Aldrich, Frauk. ----------...-------------- 587
Alexander v. Ellsbury-----...------------. 482
Amador and Sacramento Canal Co., An-
derson v. ------------------------------. 572
Anderson, Sapp v. (on review) -- . . . . . . . . . 566
Anderson v. Taunehill et al. . . . .--------.. 388
Angell, Erasmus D. ---------------------. 421
Anrys, Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. (on re-
view) ---------------------------------. 258
Arkansas, State of, Forbes et al. v . . . . . . . 163
Arkansas, State of, v. St. Louis, Iron Moun-
tain and Southern Rwy. Co. v.......... 165
Arkansas, St. Louis. Iron Mountain and
Southern Mountain Rwy. Co. v. ....... 45.
Atterbery, United States v. (on review) .. 36
Atlantic and Pacific R. R. Co. (on review) 214
Arnold v. Cooley------------------------. 551
| B,
VOLUME 1.
Baker, Central Pacific R. R. Co. v......... 355
Ballard v. McKinney--------------------- 477
Barber, Joseph--------------------------- 83
Barker, Johnson ------------------------- 164
Barnes and Allison..... -------------, ---- 34
Bartlett v. Dudley..... ge a sº º sº sº tº as ºr as º ºs º º is sº º ºs i.e. 160
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
Baughman v. Oregon Central Wagon Road
Bechtel Consolidated Mining Co. et al.,
Tunnel and Mining Co. v.--------------
Becker et al. v. Sears --------------------.
Bellevue, town of ------------------------
Benedict v. Boyer ---------------- - - - --.
Bennett v. Collins
Bennett v. Cottnach et al
Big Flat Gravel Mining Co. v. Big Flat
Gold Mining Co.-----------------------
Bingham, William T ---------------------
Birchfield, Joseph -----------------------
Bird et al., Nickals v. --------------------
Bishop, George S
Blair, Alexander et al.-------------------
Bodie Tunnel and Mining Co. v. Bechtel
Consolidated Mining Co. et al ----------
Pontain, Pierre
Booth, Henry ----------------------------
Bosworth, Caulfield v --------------------
Bowers, Delaney v
Bowers v. Wilson
Bowling, Charles. -----------------------.
Boyce, Wallace v. ------------------...-----
Boyer, Benedict v. -----------------------
Braden, W. N. ----------------------------
Bradford, James L. ----------------------.
Bradley, Schneider v. -------------------.
Blady, Patrick.--------------------------
Bray, Marks v. ---------------------------
Brewer, Elvira. --------------------------
T}ronson v. Sawyer -----------------------
Brown v. Jefferson et al
Brown v. Quinlan et al -------------...-----
Bull et al., Titus v. -----------------------
Bumpus, W. M.--------------------------
Bundy v. Livingston ---------------------
Burke, W. W. -------------------- a. * * * * * * *
Burrill v. Coulter-------------------------
as s sº º ºs e s ºr a sº e º 'º dº ſº tº
s as e e s sº a º e s is ºn s we sº as ºs s = º e º sº e s =
VOLUME 2.
Babcock v. Watson. ----------------. sº me s is
Baca, Roman A
Bailey, Hastings and Dakota R. R. Co. v . .
Bailey v. Olson ---------------------------
Baird, John W ---------------------------
Baltimore, State of Louisiana v. . . . . . . . . . .
Banegas, Stone v ------------------------.
Banks, Orvis v----------------------------
Banks v. Smith---------------------------
Barbee v. Gilmore -----------------------.
Barrett, Bell and -------------------- - - - -
Barrott v. Linney-------------------------
Baughn v. Bussard ----------------------.
Baxley, Bennett v.----- * * * * * * * * * * * ºn s sº is s sº sº.
Baxter v. Cross---------------------. -----
Bear River Placer.-----------------------
Beattie, Charles H------------------------
Bedell, Grandy v
Bell & Garrett ---------------------------
Benbow, Jemima -------------------------
Bender v. Voss ---------------------------
Bennett v. Baxley.----------------------.
Bennett v. Furman. ------------- tº gº e º 'º º 'º - tº
Page.
352
584
575, 577
503
42
159
562
297
92
Page.
Bennett v. Taylor. --------- as tº a sº sº gº dº º tº dº º is is ſº 42
Benoit, Nichols v.--------------------- tº gº ºs 583
Tenson, Pierce v ......... e is sº º is sº * * * * * * * * * * 319
Bernard, William M. --------------------- 693
Berry and Emery. ----------------------- 214
Bird, Nickals v.--------. e s sº nº e s = * * * * * * * * * * 178
Bishop, Johnson v. ----------------------- 67
Bishop v. Porter ------------------------- 119
Bishop, Ware v -------------------------- 616
Bivins v. Shelly----------...-------------- 282
Black, Field v.--------------------------- 581
Blalock, John P.--------------, -------- & 427
Bland, William.-------------------------- 428
Blenkner v. Sloggy ---------------------- 267
Bloomington Lode ----------------------. 757
Bloss, Milton F -------------------------- 277
Blum v. Petsch -------------------------- 264
Bogardus, Glaze v. ----------------------- 311
Bones, Thomas A.----------------------- 619
Bostwick, W.T. ------------------------- 113
Boulware v. Scott. ------------------- - - - 263
Bowman, Cross v. ------------------------ 226
Bradley, Plaisance v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 123
Bram well v. Central and Union Pacific
R. R. Co. . . . . --------------------------- 844
Branagan v. Dulaney -------------------- 744
Brandes, Smith v.------------------------ 95
Brasch, Foley v -------------------------. 155
Bray v. Colby ---. ---------------------- 78
Breen, Foster v -------------------------- 232
Bremen, M. W. --------------------------- 823
Brown, James---------------------------- 30
Brown v. Brown ------------------------- 259
Brown, Millett v ---------------------...-- 230
Brown, Moses v. ---...--------------------. 259
Brown v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co - - - - - - 519
Bryant, George * * * * e º is tº ºn tº * * * * * * * * * * * * 209
Buchanan v. Minton --------------------. 186
Buell and Connally, Ayers v ---...--..... . 257
Buena Vista Rancho.-----------------. ... 366, 370
Bugbee, Eben ---------------------------. 102
Bullock, Mordecai R.-------------------- 315
Burke, Johnson v ------------------------ 219
Burrows v. Farnsworth---------------... 247
Burton v. Stower.--------------. -------- 585
Bush, Franklin L. ------------------------ 788
Butterfield and Phelps. --...------------. 229
Buttery v. Sprout ----------------------- 293
Buse v. Robert. -------------------------- 290
Bussard, Baughn v.---------------------. 612
Bykerk v. Oldemeyer .------------------. 51
VOLUME 3.
Bailey et al. and Grand View Manufactur-
ing and Smelting Co. ------------------- 386
Bailey, John W., et al.--...------ tº e ∈ E is º is tº 349
Bainter, William. --. -------------------. 379
Ballantyne, Richard A.-----------------. 8
Barrum, Hicks v . ------------------------ 581
bartch v. Kennedy----------------------. 437
Beattie v. Dow --------------------------. 483
Beeken, Bidwell et al. v.------------------. 588
Beeker v. Martin . ----------------------- 502
Beers v. Miller ........ tº º is tº gº tº ſº º º ſº tº e º sº sº e as º 185
Bennett v. Gates ---...-...- * * tº e º we me tº e º º sº ſº tº gº as 377
6
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
Bennet, H. P., jr
is is ºs º 'º e º as tº º ſº * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Benschoter v. Williams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Bessent, Atlantic, Gulf and West Indies
Transit Co v .
Bidwell et al. v.
* = e s tº e a s nº e º s = * is a * * * * * * * * * *
Becker ------------------
Bishop v. Porter -------------------...--.
Bishop, Blanchard v. --...--...------------.
Black v. Canon.
Black, L. C. . . . .
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *s
Blanchard v. Bishop - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bond, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba
Box v. Ulstein -
Boyd, James M.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * is E. s. m. º sº ºr tº * * * * * * *
* * * * * g m e º sº tº gº tº º te º sº sº e º 'º at a sº as s
Breece Manufacturing Co . . . . . ----. . . . . .
Brown, Mitchell v. --...------------------.
Brown, Eva . . . .
Brown v. West.
Brown v. Ryan
Brown, Zinkand
s & ſº tº s us gº tº is sº as ºn tº gº ºn s as º ºs is ºr a s sº s º
as as a s º ºs ºs ºg tº e º sº as a s as s sº tºs & tº m is e º ºr
t) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brubaker, John S ---...-------------------
Bryant, L. V. . . . . . . * * * * * * * * = & a′ = sºn g = * * * * * * * *
Bryant, Souther
n Pacific R. R. Co v . . . . .
Buchman, Henry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Buckman, Atlantic and Paeific R. R. Co. v.
Burt, Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v . . . . . . .
Burt, Cummins
t! - - - - - - * * * * * * * * * gº º is sº tº ~ * * *
Burns, George T ------------------------.
|Butler v. Mohan
Baird, Harlow..
Eaker, G. W., et
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * as as a º º sº sº º sº.
a! :---------------------.
Baker et al. v. Heirs of McLaughlin . . . . . .
Baker v. State o
Bakke, St. Paul,
toba Rwy. Co.
f California. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Minneapolis and Mani-
* - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Banes, Cleveland v----------------------.
Barclay, Hugh. -------------------------.
Barker, Ellen . .
Barnes, Powers
* - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Barnsback, Binegar v. ------------------.
Barrows, Morfey v. ----------------...--.
Bartch v. Kennedy-----------------------
Bates, Shinnes v
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Beardsley, Gideon L. . . . . tº us tº º sº º is is a s as e s = m e
Bell v. Ward. . .
s a - sº tº m s as tº e s = e º 'º me as sº is nº e º m ºr ºs º
Benoit v. Nichols . . . . . . . . . . . tº sº as º ºs º ºs º ºs º 'º gº º
Bibbey, Leavenworth v ------------------
Binnegar v. Barnsback.-----------...----.
Bird, Cleghorn v
Blake, v Rasp...
166
293
J76
216
695
583
674
351
169
429
301
617
475
681
409
448
6.13
208
451
658
399
446
590
610
229
316
427
377
588
372
212
104
15
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * $ tº we tº º ſº sº
Blanchard, McTighe v. ... -----...--...----
Block v. Contreras. --...--...-------------.
Blume, Wertman v. . . . . . . . .-------------.
Bois Blanc Island. --...------------...--...
Bollman, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Mani-
toba Rwy. Co.
t’ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bottomly, Southern IMinnesota R. R.
Co. v. ----...--
Bowen, Elmer v
* * * s ºn s = * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Page
116 Bradford, George K................ tº sº tº us a me
418 || Brannin v. Townsend....................
Bridges, McClellan & ........-----.......
187 Brittin, James ............ tº gº º tº º tº e s is sº * * * * *
588 Brooks v. Tobien . --.....................
103 Brown, Hannah M .......................
451 | Brown v. Zeake.... ----------------------
48 || Brush, Witzel v. .........................
101 | Buchanan, Louisa A ------...----...-----
451 | Burge, Millis v. ......-----...--...--.....
Burke, Abraham L.-----------------...--.
50 | Burke, Callahan v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
569 | Burkholder v Skagen ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
394 | Burns, George T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
143 Busse et al., Sims v . . . . . . . . . . . . . --...----.
498, 605 || Burt, Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v . . . . . . .
11
65 WOLUME 5.
150 | Baca Float, No. 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.
413 | Bachman v. Smith. --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
468 Bailey v. Townsend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
380 | Bailey, John W., et al. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
449 | Baldwin, Brown v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
296 || Barlow, S. L. M. . . . . . . . . . -- - - - - - - - - - -----.
501 | Barnum, Henry E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
223 Bartlett, Elizabeth C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
276 Bassett, Knox v. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --...--.
490 Benedict v. Heberger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
544 Berger, August . . . . . --------------------.
561 | Bishop, Francis M. . . . . . . . . . . --...--...- . .
513 | Bizzell, William H. ---------------------.
583 | Bois Blanc Island . . . . . . . . .----...--
531 | Bonham et al., Deffebach v . . . . . . . .
311 | Boos, Whitcomb v. - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . .
451 | Bott, Davis v - - - - - - - -------------
144 | Bottum, Goist v . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
137 | Bouret, Alexander. --- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bradway v. Dowd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Blunt, Elias. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Boggs v. West Las Animas Townsite ---.
* * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
279 | Brady v. Southern Pacific R. R. Co. . . . . . . 407,
534 || Brady. Patrick, Southern Pacific
390 Co. v. ---------------------------
514 || Brannon v. Uriell - - - - - - - - * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
432 | Briggs, Downey v. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
532 | Brock, George A. -------------------...--.
135 | Brown, Greer v --------------------------
383 Brown v. Baldwin. ------------------...--.
424 Brown, Joseph ---------------------------
262 | Buchanan, Louisa A.--------------------.
139 | Bumgardner, Turner v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . .
519 | Bunnell, Louis W -------...----------...--.
299 | Burnett v. Crow. . . . . . . . -------------...--.
532 | Burtt, Bushnell v.--------------- s is sº tº m ſº tº gº as
478 | Byrne v. Dorward. --...------ * * * = & dº sº s º ºs ºf sm º º
277 | Bywater v. Hill et al -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
540
380 VOLUME 6.
423 | Baird, Allen v. . . . . ----------------------.
415 | Baker v. Sutherland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Baldwin v. Randall ... --...--------------.
206 | Ball v. Graham . . . . . . . . . . . . --------------
Ballard, Mary E. -------------------------
208 || Barbour, United States v . . . . . . . . . .
337 | Barclay et al. v. State of California
R. P.
* º ºs & sº E
* “º gº tº sº º Aºi
298
552
408
407
170
432
699
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
Page.
Barker, Martin v -----------------------. 763
Barlow, Bolster v.-----------------------. 825
Barnes, Julius A ------- 㺠e º & W - º & º ºs & E * is tº gº & o 522
Barr, William ---------------------------- 644
Bayne, United States v. --...--...... tº º E tº º º 4
Becker, Martin H. W.------------------- 719
Beckner, Tobias ------------------------- 134
Beeman, C. W.----------------- © ºn tº dº tº ºn tº e º e 637
Bennet, Peter W ---...------- tº ſº & © tº ſº º ºs º a sº e 672
Bennett, George C. ----------------------- 810
Berry, Hussman v. ----------------------- 375
Bertrand, Madam ------------------------ 487
Billings, Levi J.----------------- tº ºn tº gº s as ºn e 805
Bishop, Howell v. --------. gº tº º º - ºn sº º º sº sº sº sº a “ 608
Blair, McMillen v ------------------------ 783
Blodgett v. Central Pacific R. R. Co ...... 309,578
Bloss v. Hundemer et al. - ... ------...----- 342
Boeing, Wilhelm -----------------------. 262
Bolster v. Barlow -----------------------. 825
Boorey v. Lee --------------------------- 643
Bouligny, heirs of John E.--------------- 13
Boulton, Charles C ---------------------- - 339
Bowman v. Griffin . --...------------------- 424
Boyle, Albert S -------------------------- 509
Brabander, Wright v. -------------------. 760
Bracken v. Meck an . ---------------------- 264, 804
Bradford, Wilder v. ---------------------- 434
Brassfield v. Eshom ---------------------- 722
Bright, James F ----...----- - - - - - - - - sº gº tº º & 602
Bright v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co....... 613
Brown, George -------------------------- 776
Brown v. Central Pacific R. R. Co - - - - - - - - 151
Brown, Swartz v. ------------------------ 174
Buena Vista Lode.-...--------- - - - - - - - gº & E tº º 646
Burbank, Sanford v.--------------------- 773
Burer, Leo P., et al.---------------------- 537
Burlington and Missouri River R. R. Co.. 589
Burnham, Tarr v. ------------------------ 709
Burns, Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v.----.. 2]
Burrill, Byer v. -------------------------- 521
Burt's adm’r, Cummins v. ---------------- 30
Butler, Kelly v. -------------------------- 682
Byer v. Burrill --------------------------- 521
VOLUME 7.
Bailey, Anderson v. ------------------ - - - 513
Bailiff, Mary E. -------------------------- 170
Baker v. Hurst.-------------------------- 457
Bane, Harry. ----------------------------- 40
Banks, Nathaniel ------------------------ 512
Barnes, Charles A.----------------------- 66
Barr v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co ........ 235
Barrick, Holman v ----------------------- 504
Barton, Ezra A -------------------------. 261
Bardorff, Boyd v . ------------------------ 441
Beckett, James A.------------ - - - - tº e º is ºn s e 352
Bedell, Charles P ----- tº e º ºs ºs º 'º - tº dº tº º ºs º º s tº ſº ºn 495
Bergan, Ole K.--------------------------- 472
Bettelyoun, Houck v. --------------. ----- 425
Bickford, Perry-------------------------- 374
Biggerstaff, McClellan v. --...-------..... 442
Blackman, Columbus T. ----------------. 294
Blackman, Orlando ---------------------- 496
Blair v. Hastings and Dakota Rwy. Co.
et al.----------------------------------- 241
Page.
Boal, Albert D............... is e e s s e e s e = • 50
Boardman, Florida Railway and Naviga-
tion Co. v. --------------------- tº & ſº is sº * * tº tº 56
Bonebrake, Vesta F.............--------. 503
Boo, Lindgren v. ------------------------- 98
Bootli v. Short.------------------- e g º ºs e º ºr º 69
Boulder and Buffalo Mining Co.......... 54
Bowker, Edward.------------...--------. º 34
Bowman, William H.----..........----. tº 18
Bowman, Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v .... 238
Boyd v. Batdorff. --------------------...--. 441
Boyd, Connelly v.------------------------ 369
Brady, James ---------------------------- 44.
Brady, Fenno v. --...-...------------------ 330
Breach, Orr v---------------------------- 292
Brewster, Paul O.----------------------- 471
Bridges v. Curran..... --...--------------. 395
Brower v. Sprague ----------------------- 126
Brown et al., Smith v.----...--...-- * s s as sº e 423
Buffalo Gold and Silver Mining Co.,
Pettit v. ------------------------------- 494
Buffington, Reed v.--...-----------------. 154
Bunnell, Louis W. . . . . --...--- tº as a tº m º º ºs e º sº 231
Burnham, Mary H.--------------...------ 486
Burnham, Charles F. --------...--------. 464
Purns, J. B. ------------------------------ 20
Burton, Jennie.-------------------------. 451
VOLUME 8.
Ballew, Edward C. -- . . . . . . . . - * * * * * * a s an º ºs ºn 508
Banks, Nathaniel (on review).----....... 532
Barker v. Carberry ---------------------. 535
Barnes et al., Hoffman v.--------...--...--. 608
Bartl v. West ---------------------------- 289
Beall v. Engle --------------------------- 470
Becker, Sorenson v. ---------------------- 357
Bell, Harper v. --------------------------- 197
Bell, Padgett v . . . . . . . . . . tº º º ºs º º ºs º is a s is a s is tº º 630
Belliveaux v. Morrison ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 605
Bissell, Rice v . --------------------------. 606
Blake, Martha.--------------------------- 634
Bois Blanc Island.----------------------- 308, 560
Boles, A. H.------------------------------ 155
Bondurant v. Conkling. ------------------ 558
Bone v. Dickerson's heirs. --...------------ 452
Bosch, Gottlieb-------------------------- - 45
Bowman, James..... as a s = e s = * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 408
Bradford, David Y. ---------------------- 283
Brassfield v. Eshom. --------------------- 1
Bregard et al., Napthaly v --------------- 144
Bright et al. v. Elkhorn Mining Co....... 122
Brown, Jackson C . . . . . ----...------------ 587
Brown v. Central Pacific R. R. Co. --..... 589
Buettner, Ernst ---...--------------------- 185
Bullen, Joseph A.------------------------ 301
Burdick, Anna R...... gº ºs º ºs e º ºs e s m s m = s. s is a s = 230
Burch, Nellie E ......... tº s º º tº º dº e º e º s ºr e º 'º e 651
Burns, Iddings v. --...---- tº º sº tº º - º 'º º sº º te sº e s an 224, 559
Byam et al., Anderson et al. v ...... tº s = * * * 388
VOLUME 9.
Babcock, Charles F ---------------------- 333
Bacon, Frederick A.--------------------. 258
Bailey, Anderson v. (on review) ......... 585
Baird's heirs v. Page. -------------------- 188
8 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
Page Page
Baldwin, Saunders v.--...-...------------. 391 || Brennan v. Hume ----...---...----. tº º e º º ºs 160
Barbour, R. M.--------------------------- 615 Broste, Svenneby v. ...................... 108
Barbut, James (D. C. Hardee) ............ 514 Brown, Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v...... 662
Barnard, Isham M ---------------...------ 553 Brown, Quam v -----..................... 664
Bates v. Bissell ..... --...-...------...----- 546 Brunner v. Lux -------------------------- 352
Bell v. Bolles. --------------------------- 148 || Buckley, John ........................... 297
Bell, McDaniel v . --...-------------------- 15 ' Bundy v. Fremont Townsite (on review). 595
Biggs, Caleb (D. C. Hardee) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 498 Burgess v. Hogaboom.................... 470
Bingham, Peter F. ----------...--...... --- 259 Burns, Frank ----...--...--. tº s sº sº º ºs º gº us tº gº º is 365,628
Bissell, Bates v.-------------------------- 547
Boddy, State of California v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 636 C.
Bogart, Salmuel J.-----------------------. 217
Bolles, Bell v. -------------------------. . J48
Boone, James B -------------------------. 85 VOLUME 1.
Borach et al., Cornwall v. --------------. . 241 | California, State of....................... 312,320
Bouslog, Frank -------------------------. * | California, State of, v. Alari..... tº e = * * * * * * 407,453
Brakken v. Dunn et al. -----.............. 461 California, State of, Garlick v...--------. 494
Bratton, Robert R.---------...----------. * | California, State of, v. Pierce ............. 442
Bi early, Smith v ------------------------. 17° | California and Oregon R. R. Co........... 330
Brey, Florence. --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 512 Callaghan, Michael. ---------------------. 301
Bright et al. v. Elkhorn Mining Co ...... . * | Cañon De San Diego..................... 287
Brown, Eastlake, Land Co. v . . . . . . . . . . . . . * | Carland, John.................----...---- 53]
Brown, Southern Pacific R. R. Co v . . . . . . 17° Carnochan, Eda M..................----. 38
Pruner, Caroline . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 339 Cassidy, James -------------------------- 120
Buffalo Gold and Silver Mining Co., v. Petit * Caulfield v. Bosworth .................... 431
Bullard v. Florida Rw.y.and Navigation Co. 159 Cedar Hill Mining Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 628
Bunger v. Dawes. - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329 Cedar Rapids and Missouri River R. R.
Bundy v. Fremont Townsite ............. 276 Co., Leggett v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354
Burgess v. Pope's heirs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218 Cedar Rapids and Missouri River R. R.
13urgan, Hessong v. -- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353 Co., Jenness v - - - - - - - - - - - * * * * * * * * * * - iº º 353
Burkholder v. Canfield - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.. 68 Central Pacific R. R. Co. v. Baker......... 355
Burnett, Horn v . . . . . . . . . . . . ------------- 292 Central Pacific R. R. Co., Perkins v ...... 336
Burns, Thomas C.---------...--...------- * | Challacombe v. Hogue ...........--...--. 135
ISurtis, Reeve v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * | Chapman v. Zweck.---------------------. 123
Bush, Elmer E.--------------. . . . . . . . . . . . ***, * | Chase, Edward R. ...................... º 81
Byam et al., Anderson et al., v. (on review) - 215, 295 Chilili, Town of.------------------------. 285
Chilton, Cornell v.----------------------. 153
VOLUME 10. - Churchill, Rees-v --...------------------. 450
Bailey, Cone v...... • * * * * * * * * * * * * * = * * * * * * * 546 Church Placer, War Dance v ............ 549
l3aird v. Chapman's heirs e. al............ 210 Cieneguilla grant ------------------------ 622
Ball et al., Robertson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Clapp, Aubrey v.-----------------------. 489
Barry, James W. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 634 Clontarf claim (S. G. Wright et al)........ 569
13ass, Central Pacific R. R. Co. . . . . . . . . . . . 499 || Cole v. Phelps.----------------, ---------- 109
Bassett, Caroline B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Cole, Schofield v ------------------------. 140
Bay State Gold Mining Company v. Tre- Collins, Bennett v.----------------------. 42
Willion . ---------------------------- . . . 194 | Colwell, Fenton v. ----------------------. 448
Beal, Missouri, Kansas and Texas Rwy, Conner, Charles ------------------------- 603
Co. v.-------- ~ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * g º º ºs s sº s = ºs 504 | Conner, Joseph. ------------------------- 304
Beck, William K. -----...------...--...----. 296 | Conlin v. Yarwood -----------------...--.. 411
Bennett, Dickson v. -----...- ... . . . . . . . . . . 451 | Cook, Dennis ---------------------------. 310
Berdam, Green v.------------------------. 294 i Cook, George W -----------------------. . 128
Bernard, Thatcher v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 485 Cooper et al. v. Sioux City and Pacific
Bickel et al. v. Irvine..................... 205 R. R. Co. --------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------- 345
Binum, Ravezza v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 694 | Copper Prince, Warren Mill-Site v....... 555
Black, Largey et al. v.------...------------. 156 Corcoran, Doininick - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 307
Blake v. Marsh. ----...----------. . . . . . . . . 612 Cornell v. Chilton ---------...--...--------. 153
Blanchet, Dahon v. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . 61 | Cottnach et al., Bennett v. ---...----...--. 159
Bogue, Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. ...... 386 | Cotton Owen... -------------------------- 99
Boos v. Whitcomb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 584 || Cowan v. Woodside. --------------------- 127
Bottomly, Waldroff v. .................... 133 Coulter, Burrill v ------------------------ 75
Bowker, Edward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 548 Cox, Kate -------------------------------- 52
Boyd, Connelly v. (on review). ........... 489 Critchfield v Lewis.---------------------- 121.
Boyd v. State of Oregon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315 | Cromartie, P. G. ------------------------. 607
Boyer v. Union Pacific Rwy. Co.......... 568 Cudney v. Flannery ... ------------------- 165
Brecheisen, Waughn v........... * * * * * * * * * 585 Curtis v. Griffes -------------------------- 148
DIGEST
OF LAND DECISIONS.
VOLUME 2.
Page. California, State of, v. Dodson....... --...-
Caledonia Mining Co. v. Rowen .......... 714.7° California, State of Southern Pacific R.
California, State of.-----------........... 643,644 R. Co. v.----------- - - ... as ºv - e s - e s e º ºs e s - tº *
Campbell, Duncan v.................. ... * California and Oregon R. R. Co....... --
Campbell v. Moore ....................... ” Call v. Swaim ........--...-----------....
Carland v. McElrath ... ... ----...--... ... 108 Campbell, Crary v.-----------------------
Carlton and Steele, Peninsular R. R. Co. v. * Campbell v. Moore...--...---------------.
Carr, Stewart v . . . . . • * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * | Canon, Black v...........................
Carrahar v. Iowa Falls and Sioux City R. Capitan Grandé Cañon Reservation......
R. Co. --------------------------------. 483 Carrick, Robert........ • * * * * s sº - º e º - e g º - e. e.
Carrick, Robert.--------------------...--. 456, 468 Cary et al. v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis
Carter, Coe and -------------------------- 829 and Omaha Rwy. Co------.............
Carter, Holterman v ..................... * | Caste, Nancy Ann ---...-...-............
Carter and Shiver.--...-...-------...----- * | Caward, J. J.-----------------------------
Casadas, Manuel ........ ---------...-----. 408 Central Pacific R. R. Co. Emmerson v ...
Casimalia Rancho ----...............----- 400 Central Pacific R, R. Co. v. Wolford's Heirs
Cedar Rapids and Misson ris River R. R. Chadbourne, Pruitt v. ---------..........
Co. v. Ragan. --...---------...------------. ** Chaffee, Towey v ......... • - ºn e ºs e º ºs a - as tº
Central Pacific R. R. Co., Bramwell v. . . . . * Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha
Central Pacific R. R. Co. v. Orr...... - - - - - * Rwy. Co. Cary et al., v.................
Central Pacific R. R. Co. v. Woolf . . . . . . . . * Christofferson, Peter.....................
Central Pacific R. R. Co. (successor to Cal- Clark v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co.......
ifornia and Oregon) . . . . . . . . * = - - * - - - s - - - * Clark, Nehemiah P.......................
Central Pacific R. R. Co. (successor to Clay, Henry -----------------------------
Western Pacific----...---------......... *" Cliff, Henry ..............................
Chacon, Rafael.------...---------------.. * Clump, Richard....-----------------...--
Chaves, Rafael.-------------------------- 684 Cleary v. Smith. --------------------------
Chessman, William A. ----------------...-- "* . Cleaves v. French........................
Chilili Town Grant .... -----------...----- * Cochran, Box v...........................
Clara Lode.------------------------------ 7* Cochran v. Helen..... fº = * * * * * e º 'º º is as tº e º sº * = s.
Clark, Fitch v --------------------------- 202 Coffman, Helen A............. e e is a “s s s m e s is
Clark v. Lawson -----------------------.. * Cogswell, C. P.--------------------------.
Clemens, Rowland v ..... --...--.......... * Collin v. Hotchkiss.............-----.....
Clewell and Marsh...----................ * Copp, H.N.------------------------------
Clewinger, Palmer v. --------------------- 36 Corbin v. Orr ......... - - a sm - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Clewish, Hileman and .--------...--------. 400 Cowles, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Mani-
Cobb, Weaks v.--------------------------- * toba R. R. Co. v.-----------------...--..
Coe and Carter--------------------------. * Cox, William A.......---------...-...--.
Coffey, Arnold v -----------------------.. * Cram v. McAllister.......................
Colby, Bray v. --------------------------- * Crans, Davis v ........................
Cole, Lottie J.--------------------------. " Crary v. Campbell........................
Cole v. Markley ------...--------------...--. * Cratsenberg, W ..........................
Colonel Hall Lode.------------------...--. ”” Cribb, Cronan v..........................
Condon v. Arnold . . . . . -----...------------. * Cronan v. Cribb.....---------------------
Connally and Buell, Ayers v.............. * Crooks v. Hadsell.........................
Cook, Dumas v .------------------------. * Crosby, Henderson v.--------------...--.
Cook v. Nilson --------------------------- * Crosby, John.............................
Cook v. Slattery * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 173 Crusaden v. Perley • * * * * * * * * * e º º º sº tº º sº º - tº a º
Corkscrew Placer.----------------------. * Crow Reservation........................
Corno v. Gjerberg.------------------...-. 224 | Cummings v. Burt ........ * * s is ºn as ºn tº e s s = e s •
Cotton Lode . . . . ------------------------. 752
Coyle, Houston v.-----------------------. 58 VOLUME 4.
Crafts and Talbot.----------------------. 33 Caldwell v. Carden.-----------------...--
Craven, 1)avid --------------------------. * Calhoun, J.C., et al.......................
Creary, William E. ---...----------------- 692,694 California, Southern Pacific R. R. Co. v.--
Criswell, Lown v. ------------------------ 49 California, Southern Pacific R. R. Co. v...
Criteser, Rust and ------...---------------. 754 California and Oregon R. R. Co. v. State of
Cross, Baxter v.-------------------------. 69 California.----------. -----------------
Cross v. Bowman. ------------------------ 226 California v., United States.-------------.
Crystal Lode.---------------------------- 722 Callahan v. Burke.-----------------------
Curry, Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v ...... 852 Camens, Pecard v. -------- • * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
volumſe 3. Cameron, Daniel, et al.------------------.
Cadle, Cornelius, jr.--------------------- 173 | Campbell, Mark L..... tº tº * * * = e º 'º e º 'º - e º e º & ©
Caldwell and Smith ...-------------------- 125 | Cann v. Cannon. ----------------------.
California, State of.......-- - e º e º ºs e º ºs s a e º a 492, 327 | Carden, Caldwell v. ----------------------
428
169
505
271
264
100
454
609
331,472
455
226
361
51
228
347
223
223
258
360
139
145
304
306
469
437
4, 579
142
371
170
152
515
228
322
306
10
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
Page.
Capprise v. White. ----------------------- 176
Carey, Morehouse v ---------------------. 111
Carlson, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Mani-
toba R. R. Co. v. ----------------------. . 281
Castle, Parker v. ------------------------- 84
Caviness v. Harrah. ---------------------- 174
Central Pacific R. R. Co., Harden v. ...... 484
Central Pacific R. R. Co., Poin tard v . . . . . 353
Central Pacific R. R. Co., Schlein v....... 401
Central Pacific R. R. Co. v. Wadman . . . . . 341
Chamberlin v. Drucker. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -.. 70
Champion Mining Co. ------------...----- 362
Champlin et al., Jacobs v. ---------...--.. 318
Chappell, Mahin v. ----------------------. 35U
Cherokee Nation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 535
Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific R. R.
Co. v. Easton--------------------------. 265, 443
Chilcote, Thomas C. --. ------------------ 496
Chrisinger, R. M. --...---------------. ---. 347
Christensen, Maren . ---------------- tº º is a sº 317
Christie, Dºwy v. ------------------------ 346
Churchill v. Seeley et al... --...----...--...--. 589
Clark, Holdridge et al. v.----------------- 382 :
Clark, Melcher v ------------------------- 504
Clark v. Timm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -----------. 175, 357
Clark, William, et al.---------...--...----. 569
Cleaves v. French. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Cleghorn v. Bird.-----------------------.. 478
Cleveland v. Banes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. 534
Cleveland v. Dunlevy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
Collar v. Collar. ------------------------.. 26, 275
Conella, James W. ----------------------. 418
Conk v. Rechenbach. -- - - - - - gº º a s = • * * * * * * * * 106, 257
Conley, jr., et al., Ryan v. --------...------. 246
Contreras, Block v.---------------------. 380
Cook, Wesley A.-------------------------. 187
Copeland, James ------------------------. 275
Cordell Placer Mine---------. . . . . . . . . . . • • 476
Cram v. McAllister. ---------------....... 207
Crawford, Smith &------------........... 449
Crooks v. Guyot. ------------------------. 508
Crosthwaite, Forest M.----------........ 406
Croughan v. Smiuh et al. . . . . . . . . . . . . * = s = e tº 413
Cummins, Southern Pacific R. R. Co. v. . . . 98
Cushing et al. v. State of Michigan . . . . . . . . 415
Cutgers, Pelerin v.--------------...--..... 529
VOLUME 5.
California, State of, v. Fleming et al...... 37
California, State of, v. Martin............. 99
California, State of, v. Smith. . . . . . . . . . . . . 543
Cassidy v. Arey. ---. tº a s tº * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 235
Cass, Rabuck v.-------------------------. 398
Cathran v. Davis.----------------------- 249
Cayuga Lode ------------------- * * * * * * * * * 703
Centmer v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co . . . 311
Central Pacific R. R., Ramage v -- . . . . . . 616
Central Pacific R. R. Co. ---...----...- ... 661
Central Pacific R. R. Co., Griffin v. . . . . . . . 12
Central Pacific R. R. Co., Perkins v . . . . . . 155
Central Pacific R. R. Co., Ramage v . . . . . . 274
Central Pacific R. R. Co., Rees v . . . . . . . . . 62,277
Chicago, Kansas and Western R. R. Co. . 384
Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Rwy.
Co., McAndrew v..... & & s = * * * g º ºs º ge tº º e s a 202
Page.
Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha
RWy. Co ------------------------------- 511
Church, Harry S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 668
Clark, Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v...... . 138
C. N. Nelson Lumber Co........... * * * * * * 598
Cole, Reynolds v.------------------------ 555
Commissioners of Kings County v. Alex-
ander et al.------- . . . . . . . ...--------. . 126
Conners et al., United States v. ......... 647
Cooley, Allen v --------------------------. 261
Cooper v. Harris.-----------------------. 449
Copeland et al., United States v.......... 170
Corey v. Hunt. --------------------------- 41
Coughlan v. Donan -------------- - - ------ 14?
Council, Lafayette...-------------------. 631
Cravens, Elisha B.-----------...----. w as as sº me ºf 540
Crook, Paukonin v.---------------------. 456
Crow v. Andrus. ------------------------- 425
Crow, Burnett v ........ tº dº sº º se tº sº s se s is sº e = * * * * 372
Crowston v Seal-...---------------------- 213
Cull, Francis M. --...--------------------. 34
Currier, Hotaling v. ---...---------------- 368
; Cuthbert et al., Deming v. ...... ſº s e º as e º & e 365
Cutten v. Robles..... ----------------... 366
VOLU ME 6.
California, State of... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403, 571,824
California and Oregon Land Co . . . . . . . . . 84, 92
California and Oregon R. R. Co. (consoli-
dated with Central Pacific R. R. Co.) .. 84, 92
Campbell, John. ------------------------. 317
Cannon, Jacobs v.------------------------- 623
Carlson v. Kries. ------------------------- 152
Carter, Coe and. ------------------------- 725
Case, Leonard F. . . . . .-------------------. 255
Cayce v. St. Louis and Iron Mountain R.
R. Co. --------------------------------. 356
Central Pacific R. R. Co. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 815
Central Pacific R. R. Co., Blodgett v...... 309,578
Central Pacific R. R. Co., Brown v. - - - - - . . . 15}
Central Pacific R. R. Co., Freeman v. . . . . 249
Central Pacific R. R. Co. v. Hawkins. . . . 382
Central Pacific R. R. Co. v. Painter ...... 485
Central Pacific R. R. Co., Ph, llips v . . . . . . 378,576
Chadwick, St. Paul, Minneapolis and
Manitoba Rwy. Co. v.----------...------. 128
Chapman, Frank ------------------------ 583
Chase, Lewis W ------------------------. 834
Chaslie v. Smith.--------------------...--. 654
Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul R. R.
Co., Sioux City and St. Paul R. R. Co.
and ------------------------------------ 54
Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha
Rwy. Co.------------------------. . . . . 84,92, 195
Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha
Rwy. Co. (Bayfield Branch). ----...----. 209
Chouteau, Charles P., et al ------------. sº 462
Chrisman, William ---------------------- 601
Clabourn, Alabama and Chattanooga R.
R. Co. v . . . . . ----------------------- * * * * 427
Clark, George T. - - - -------------------- 157
Clark et al., United States v.------------- 770
Clement, D. A --------------------------- 772
Clement v. Heney.----------------- tº gº is tº º º 641
Cloutier, Jeanne Pierre........ tº dº º ºs º ºs º º ſº e 447
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
11
Page.
Coble v. Southern Pacific R. R. Co...... . 679, 812
Coe and Carter ----------------. -------- 725
Coffin, Charles F. ... ---------------------- 398
Cole, Harlan. ---------------------------. 290
Coleman v. Winfield -----------...-------- 826
Colorado, State of.----------------------. 412
Conners. James W ---------------------- 823
Columbia Reservation....... ------...--. 3
Cook v. Wilbur -------------------------- 600
Cornell Lode.---------------------------- 717
Cotton v. Struthers ---------------------. 288
Courtright, John E., et al...-------------. 459
Cowan v. Asher ------------------------- 785
Cowhick, Neff v ---...--...--------...----- 660
Coyne v. Townsite of Crook et al. ........ 675
Crook Townsite et al., Coyne v.--........ 675
Cummins v. Admr. of Burt ---...-------- 30
Curtiss v. Simmons---------------------. 359
Cutter et al., Wakefield v - - -...-...----. 451
Cyprus Mill Site------------------------- 706
WOLUME 7.
Caffee, Ezra D--------------------------- 289
Cain, James A.-------------------------. 482
California, State of . --------------...----. 91, 270
California, State of, Early v.----......... 347
Cameron, John -------------------------- - 436
Campbell et al., Jones v.----............. 404
Campbell v. Middleton et al......... ----. 400
Candido v. Fargo ------------------------ 75
Carey v. Curry--------------------------. 27
Carmon, Hugh A. ------------------------ 334
Carpenter, Chauncey ...--...---------...--. 236
Carroll, Stayton v.----------------------. 198
Cates v. Hastings and Dakota Rwy. Co.. 223
Cayce v. St. Louis and Iron Mountain R.
R. Co ---------------------------------- 204
Central Pacific R. R. Co. v. Engram.... .. 240
Central Pacific R. R. Co. v. Field ......... 406
Central Pacific R. R. Co. v. Geary ........ 149
Chambers, W. J -----------------------. g 32
Chandler, L. D. --------------------------- 356
Chitwood v. Hickok.--------------------. 277
Choate, John R. ------------------------- 281
Christensen v. Mathorn . --............. 527
Christian v. Strentzel. ------------------. 68
Churchill v. Hankanson et al.---......... 428
Clark v. Shuff et al.--------------------.. 252
Clarke, Judith M ------------------------ 485
Colorado, State of.----------------------- 490
Cone, J. S -------------------------------. 94
Conelly v. Boyd-------------------------. 369
Conrad v. Emick------------------------- 331
Cook, Skiddie V ------------------------- 309
Corey, Andrews v ---------------------.. 89
Cowhick, Neff v. (on review). ....... tº gº tº 245
Craig v. Howard. --------- tº is sº º sº me is s = e s = s. sº e 329
Crooks, Grove v ------------------------ & 140
Crosier, Frank E.------------------------ 195
Culp, Gehman v.-------------------------- 447
Curran, Bridges v ----------------------- e 395
Curry, Carey v -------------------------- g 27
Curtius, Allen v. ------------------------- 444
Cutting v. Reininghaus et al. ---...-- tº & º º is 265
VOLUME 8.
Page.
Caldwell v. Missouri, Kansas and Texas
Rwy. Co. et al---------------. --------- 570
California, Central Pacific R. R. Co. v. ... 79
California et al., Wright et al. v . . . . . . . . . . 24
California, State of.... ----...----------. iº 307
California v. United States............... 4
Campbell, Mary-------------------------- 331
Campbell, Samuel L.... ---............... 27
Campbell v. Kelley. --...-...------...---- 75.
Campbell, Payne v. --...--...-------------. 367
Capps, L. J.---------- * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - º 406
Carberry, Barker v. ---------...----------- 535
Carlson v. Kries (on review) ............. 186
Carter, Palmer v.--...-...---------...---- 544
Central Pacific R. R. Co....... ----....... 30.
Central Pacific R. R. Co., Brown v. - ...... 589
Central Pacific R. R. Co. v. California..... 79
Central Pacific R. R. Co. v. Doll - ......... 355
Central Pacific R. R. Co., Odgers v ....... 520,
Cleaveland, Johnson v.----...--...--...---- 405.
Chamberlin, T. L.------------------------- 421
Chase, Lewis S--------------------------- 393
Chicago, Burlington and Quincy R. R. Co. 546.
Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Rwy.
Co. v. Amundson. ---------------------- 291
Chitwood v. Hickok (on review) ......... 448
Choate, E.L. ---------------------------- 162
Colfer, Spaulding v ----------------------- 615.
Conkling, Bondurant v. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 558
Counterman v. Missouri, Kansas and
Texas Rwy. Co. ------------------------ 237.
Cowhick, Neff v - - - - - - - - - - * * * * * * * us e º a s a sº º 111
Creswell Milling Co. v. Johnson.--------. 440, 443
Cromwell, Oscar. ------------------------. 432
Crumpler v. Swett.----------------------. 584
Cunningham, Melissa J-----------------. 433
Custer et al., Smith v.-------------------- 269.
* VOLUME 9.
Cady v. Queen et al ---------------------. 445.
California, State of.-------------------...- 208
California v. Sevoy----------------------- 139.
California, State of Boddy v. ------------ 636
Call, Swain v. ---------------------------- 22
Cameron, Hugh -------------------------- 399.
Campbell v. Votaw. ---------------------- 11
Campbell v. Ricker. -- ------------------- 55.
Canfield, Burkholder v. ------------------ 68
Carpenter, Graham v. ------. ------------- 365
Carson, John ----------------------------- 160.
Carter, Martha A.----------------------- 604
Case, Timothy B. ------------------------ 625.
Casner, Reed v. -------------------------- 170
Catlin v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co. ------ 423
Casteen, McCrory v --------------------- 129,
Central Pacific R. R. Co. ----------------- 613
Central Pacific R. R. Co., Maison v ---...-- 65
Central Pacific R. R. Co. v. Shepherd.... 213
Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha
Rwy. Co ---------------------------- 221, #65, 483.
Chichester v. Allen ---------------. tº º º ºs e e 302
Childs v. Southern Pacific R. R. Co. ------ 471
Christensen, J. H. ------------------------ 202
Clark. Lewis v ------------------ iº tº gº º ºs e º 'º ſº &
12
DIGEST of LAND DECISIONs.
Clark, Sidney et al...... -----------------.
Cobby v, Fox ---------------. tº gº ºn tº ºn 45 & as a dº sº, sº
Coble, Wright v.-----------. ... as tº º sº ºr w as sº * * * * *
Cochran v. Dwyer. ----------------- ------
Compton et al., Handy et al. v .......-----
Conly v. Price.-----...----. - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Cornish, Arthur B . . . . . . . ... • * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Cornwall v. Borach et al........... * * * * * ºr ſº
Cornwell, Albert II ........ -------------.
Crockett, Rothwell v. --------------------
Courtney et al., Powers v ...... ºn as a s gº tº º sº sº ſº
“Curl, Montgomery v.--------...---------. &
Cushing, Honnold v. --...--------- • a s = * * * * *
WOLUME 10.
‘Cady v. Queen et al. (on review). . . . . . . . .
Cage, Chinn v.-----------.... ......... sº tº
California, State of, Harvey et al. v.-----.
'Callanan et al. v. Chicago, Milwaukee and
St. Paul Rwy. Co. --...------...---------.
‘Cameron, Helen M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-- * * * * * *
Cameron Lode, IBrie Lode v -----.........
Canning v. Fail . . . . . . . . . -----------------
Canon, John R. . . . . . . . . . º, º ºr me s as an as * * * * * * * * *
‘Capricorn Placer - - - - - - ---- * * * * * tº º as as gº tº sº tº as as
Carnes v. Smith.------------------------.
‘Carson v. Finity. . . . . . . . . . .----. ----------
Cass County, Illinois ....................
Central Pacific R. R. Co. (on review). . . . .
Central Pacific R. R. Co., Icard v. ........ -
'Central Pacific R. R. Co, Plaetke v . . . . . . .
Central Pacific R. R. Co. et al. v. Rees . . . .
Central Pacific R. R. Co., Showell v. ......
“Central Pacific lit. R. Co., United States v.
Champaign County (State of Illinois)....
Chapman's Heir's et al., Baird v. ..........
Chapman v. Patterson ----------...--...----.
‘Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Rwy. Co.
Callanan et al. v -------...--...------...--.
‘Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Rwy. Co.
v. Mellbrath ----------------------------
, Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha
Rwy. Co., Shire et al. v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha
Church, William L. ..... - - - - - - - - • - - - - - - - - -
‘Clearwaters et al., Linville v. .............
Clement, Edward C. ----..................
‘Cline, Southern Pacific R. R. Co. v. ....... s
Clyatt, Stowell v. ------...--...------------.
"Cobby v, Fox (on review)..... * * * * * * * * * * *s sº
Cole v. Reed -----------------------------
Colfer, Spalding v, (on review). ...........
Collier v. Wyland............... tº º º ºs tº sº º ºr a s
Collins Heirs v. Winslow ...........
‘Colorado, State of... . . . . . . ................
Colton, Joseph L. ....... it tº a sm is ºr ºf s as sº e s as as * * * *
‘Cone v. Bailey ..... , º ſº º ºn tº gº tº ºw & ſº º ºs º & º º ºs º º * * g.
Page.
333
501
199
478
100
490
569
241
340
89
480 |
57
182
575
480
217
285
185
655
657
78
641
j ()0
fº?
22
439
498
464
317
281
167
466
121
210
129
147
173
Connelly v. Boyd (on review).............
Continental Gold and Silver Mining Co. v.
Gage.--------------------------* * * * * * * * * -
Cook, Thomas C.------------------------.
Cooley, Arnold v.--...---------------------
Costello v. Jansen ..... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Coy, John G. ... ... * * * * as gº ºf s as sº e º ºs º ºs ºf ºn a w = sº sº as
Crane v. Stone.--------------------------.
Crawford v. Furguson ---...------...-...--.
Crawford, Ott v. --...--...-...--...-- --------
Curtis, C. S. . . . . . . . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Cushman, Mead v -------...--------------.
Cyr et al. v. Fogarty ---------------------.
ID,
"VOLUME 1.
Dalles Military Wagon-IRoad Co., Over-
holt v ----------------------------------
Darby, Hewlett v.----------------...-----
T)arcey, McCarthy v ---------------...--..
Davis, Richards v.-----------------------
Day, G.C --------------------------------
T}ean Richmond Lode.------------------.
Delaney v. BowerB -...----------------...--.
Dephanger, Philip -...-- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
TXewhurst, W. W. . . . . ----...--..... ------
Dieffenbacher, Joseph M.--------------..
Dobbs Placer Mine ..... * * * * is sº sº an º' e s as * * * * *
Dodge, H. C. -----------------------------
Drumhiller, Thomas v ----...--...--...-----
IDudley, Bartlett v. -----------------------
Dusterberg, Willardson v.--------...-----
VOLUME 2.
Daneri v. Texas and Pacific R. R. Co .....
Darlington, Charles H. --------------...--.
Tarnell, Lunney v.----------------------
Davenport, Sandell v.--------------, ---..
Davis v. McNeel . . . . . --------------------
Day, DeMott v. --...--------------------, -
| Dayton, James M . ----------- . . . . -------
DeGraff& Co., Northern Pac. R. R. Co. and
DeMott v. Day - - - - - - - - - - - * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Denny v. Taylor's Heirs - - - - - - - * * * * * * * * * *
I)evor, David ...--- -----------------------
Dibble, Satterlee v. ...---------------------
Dickson v. Schlater ----------------------
Dillon, N. P. ------------------------
Dodd v. Gamble. -------------------------
Dolet, Pierre. --...-- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Dorr, Slate v---------------- * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Downey v. Rogers.---- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *s -.'
Doyle v. Wilson.-------- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Drachman, Samuel Eſ...... ----- § s ºn tº sº º ºs ºs º
Dubuque and Sioux City R. R. Co........
Dughi v. Harkins ------------- * * * * * * * * * * *
Dulaney, Branagan v ------------ tº a tº - ºr e º º
Dumas, Allsop 9 -------------------------
Dumas v. Cook. --------------------------
Duncan v. Campbell.------------...------.
Duncan, Tyler v.------------------------.
Durfee, Charles -----....... • - - - - - - - - - e wº º º
I’age.
489
534
324
551
10
495
216
274
117
188
253
616
389
85
78
111
529
545
163
581
40.
484
565
486
160
455
548
89
593
157
141
225
634
819
225
227
403
597
831
120
463
635
707
340
542
72
744
626
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
13
VOLUME 3.
Davis, Samuel ---------------------------
Davis v. Crans ---------- ---------------.
Davison v. Parkhurst ------------..
De Lendrecie, Eugene J -----------------
Derevan, Doten v------------------------
Derham, Henry W -----------------------
Docking, Joel.---------------------------
Dodson, State of California v.-----------.
Doherty, White v ------------------------
Dole, David B.---------------------------
Donovan et al., Mangin v. -----------...---
Donovan, McKibben v.-----------------.
Doty v. Moffatt . -------------------------
Doten v. Derevan.------------------------
Dow, Beattie v.---------------------------
Downs v. McGee -------------------------
Doyle, Morgan v . ------------------------
Driscoll, Forbes v ------------------------
Dudgeon v. Seeley-----------------------.
Dunlap, Lauren.-------------------------
Durant, Little v --------------------------
Durkee v. Teets--------------------------
Duvall v. Nielson.-------------------------
Dyer, J. E.-------------- :-----------------
VOLUME 4.
Dakota Central Rwy. Co., Pleasants v. --.
Daniels et al., Hopkins v -----------------
Dayton v. Hause et al -----------. ---...--.
Dewees Grant. ---------------------------
De Wolf, Stroud v------------------------
Dewy v. Christie.-----------------------.
Dion, Doyle v ----------------------------
Docking, Hudson v.----------------------.
Doheney, Percival v---------------------.
Donly v. Spring --------------------------
Donogh et al., Smith v ------------------.
Douglas v. Jensen ----------------------.
Dowling, Milne v------------------------.
Doyle v. Dion-----------------------------
Doyle v. Kelley -------------------------.
Drucker, Chamberlin v ------------------
Duffy, Nicholson v ----------------------.
Dumont, Neil ---------------------------.
Duncan, Reubie A.------------- * * * * * * * * * * *
Duncan, Thomas C ----------------------
Dunker et al., Lezeart v. ----------------.
Dunlevy, Cleveland v -----------...------.
Duprat v. Ewing-------------------------
Duprey, heirs of G. and D. --------------.
Durbin, Stanton v. -----------------------
Durkee v. Teets -------------- tº e º me tº e º sº sº º º is
204
551
86, 370
567
545
74
512
3.13
330
523
126
263
546
394
346
27
Donan, Coughlin v -----------------------
Dooley, McKinney v --...----------------
Dooley, Southern Pacific R. R. Co. v......
Dorward, Byrne v ------------------------
Dowd, Bradway v ------------------------
Downey v. Briggs.-----------------------
Dunlap v. Raggio et al.-------------------
VOLUME 6.
Dalles Military Road Co..... --...-------.
Davis and Pennington v. Drake ---...--...-
Dayton v. Dayton.-----------------------
Deakins v. Matheson -------------------.
De Celle, M. H. -------------------------.
Denver and Rio Grande Rwy. Co........
De Shane, Murphy v. --...----------------
Devor, David ---- -------. --------------
Dodge, Willis E.------------------------.
Dorgan v. Pitt.---------------------------
Douglas, Alexander.--------------...--...-
Downey, Owen D-------------------------
Drake, Davis and Pennington v. .........
Ducros, Rudolphus. --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dudden, Northern Pacific Railway Co. v.
Dunluce Placer Mine --------------------
Durbize, John. ---------------------------
Dwyer, Isabella M. ----------------------
VOLUME 7.
D’Acres v. Tuthill.--------. * * * * * * * * * *º e s s s
Davidson v. Kokojan. --------------------
Davis, David J. --------------------------
Dayton v. Hause et al --------------------
DeBock, Joseph L. -----------------------
Delapp v. Jackson.-----------------------
Dell, Dovenspeck v.----------------------
Devine, Kane et al. v.----------------...---
DeWolf, Marcus J -----------...--, -----.
Dicks, Florida Rwy. and Navigation Co. v.
Dixon v. Sutherland ----------------------
Dovenspeck v. Dell ----------------------
Downs, John.---------------------------.
Doyle, Edward J. ---------- tº e º sº º ºs º gº º me tº a gº sº
Driscoll v. Morrison.------------------...--
Dumbolten, Kruger v -------------------.
Duncan et al., Welch v.----------- tº Lº º tº º tº e
VOLUME 8.
Daly, Patrick ----------------------------
Dakota Central R. R. Co. v. Downey.-----
Davis, Edward C. ------------------------
Davis v. Davidson. ----------------------.
Dayton v. Dayton (on review). --...-.....
Delaney v. Watts et al.-------------------
Delbridge v. Florida Rwy. and Navigation
Dement, Helen E.------------------------
Denver and Rio Grande R. R. Co.........
Dickerson's Heirs, Bone v. ------...------.
Disch, John B.---------------------------
Doll, Central Pacific R. R. Co. v.--...------
Donovan, Michael.------------------- & ºn
Doolittle, Edwin ---...------------ tº gº tº º º ºs tº tº
Dorman, Nellie N ------------------- tº gº º ſº º
Dotson et al. v. Arnold.--...------ tº dº º º ſº tº tº ſº tº º
Page.
142
362
380.
104
451
590
440.
84, 92
243
164
775.
449
831
370
616
548
23
243
149
761
536
468
560
542
323
308
VOLUME 5.
Daniell v. Danforth ---------------------.
Davis v. Bott ---------------------------.
Davis, Cathran v -------------------------
Davis, Wilson.--------------------------.
Dearth, Hall v.---------------------------
Deffebach v. Bonham et al. --...----------.
Deming v. Cuthbert et al.----------------
Devoe, Lizzie A.------------------------.
Dullivan v. Snyder.---------------------.
1)olman v. Latshaw. ------- tº gº tº sº ſº ſº tº º gº tº ſº tº ſº tº
333, 501
134
542
304
162
378
27
190
70
332
s:
u_j
384
133
96
121
19
187
445
99
118
211
249
376
172
409
365
184
630
20.
532
175
312
20.
71
274
212
186.
471
115.
507
417
248
480
410
639
41
452
31
355
382
403
519
14 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONs.
Dow, Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v ........
Downey, Dakota Central R. R. Co. v.--...
Drew, William -------------------........
Dubuque and Sioux City R. R. Co., Mudg-
ett 0-, --- - - - - ------------------- = n w = e s =
Duhain et al., Hambleton v ........... wº gº º ºs
Dunphy, Elijah M. .......................
WOLUME 9.
Davis v. Fairbanks ---------...------ * † º ºr
Davis, Waller v. ....... & e º 'º e s = * * * * * * * * * * *
Dawes, Bunger v. ..... * = º ſº tº ſº * * * * * * * * *E* : º ºs º gº
Dayton v. Dayton (on rereview) .........
Dayton v. Hause et al. (on review) .......
Des Moines Valley R. R. Co., Fair child v.
Diggins, Rohrbough, v-------------------
Dinwiddie v. Florida Rwy, and Naviga-
Doud et al. v. Slocomb.......... gº º ſº ſº º gº tº gº is tº
Dougherty, Hughey v. ----...--- tº gº tº tº dº º ſº tº ge
Drury v. Shetterly.-----------------------
Dunn et al., Brakken v.-------------------
Dwyer, Cochran v ..... tº e º ºs e ∈ E is gº ºne me tº s º tº º gº tº
VOLUME 10.
Dahon v. Blanchet ----- { } e º 'º - † tº º ºs e tº tº tº º ºs º ºs
l)ailey, Hornback v.--------------------.
Danford v. Ellsworth. -------------------.
l)avis v. Kaminsky. ----- • * * * * * * * * * * * * * tº º ºs
Davisson v. Gabus et al. ------------------
Dayton, Lyman C --------------------- * * *
Dean, Ackerson v ------...--- g º º ºs tº sº tº tº dº º ºs º ºs tº
Deau, John J ---------------------------.
De Celle, M. H. (on review) ..............
Dermody, Michael ------...--------------.
Devereux, Huntoon v -------------------.
Dickinson, G. T. ---------...---------------
Dickson v. Bennett......... tº ſº tº ſº º º º is tº ſº is a tº
Diehl, Tripp v. -------------------- * gº ºs ºs e is s
Diemer, Lewis et al. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . tº e º as
Diggins, Rohrbough v ... -- tº º sº sº tº gº e º 'º º º ſº tº º
Dougherty, James ----.
Douglas, John W. ...... * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Douglas County, State of Illinois ........
l)ox v. State of Wisconsin................
Dronberger, Emily M.-----...-----...------.
Dubuque and Pacific R. R. Co., Prinde-
Dunn v. Shepherd et al..........---------
Durham, Samuel P........... * † : * ~ * * tº e º º º
E,
VOLUME 1.
Ebinger, Christian F. . . . . . . . . . . . * * * * * * * * * g
Edwards v. Sexson. ---...--..............
Elliott, Elijah ----------...- ... s º º sº we sº sº º sº a º º ºs
Elliott, John J --------------------------.
Emerson v. Southern Pacific R. R. Co . . . .
Ewell, Eli.--------...... tº s vs sº * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Ewing v. Rickard.-----...---------......
Ezernack, Edward ........ • * * * * * * * * * * * * . . . .
Page.
389
115
399
243
326
102
530
262
329
93
193
637
308
74
532
29
211
461
478
61
318
341
346
114
159
477
446
81
419
408
449
451
591
577
136
79
116
446
39
88
575
139
557
VOLUME 2.
Earle, Agnes N. L.-......... tº e º 'º-gº gº tº tº gº e º º sº
Edwards, Lunde v.------------------...--.
Pgbert v. Paine.------------------------
Eldridge v. Varner. ----------------......
Elkhorn Lode.-----...--------...--. ſº tº º sº º º
Elkins, Mark L., jr. --------------...----.
Elsner, Koons v --------------------------
El Sobrante Rancho .....................
Pinery, Berry and-------------------...--.
Emmert v. Kilpatrick.----...............
Empey, Plugert v -------------------...--.
England v. Libby. -----------------------
Erickson v. Way......... tº º is tº º ſº tº * e º sº e º sº, sº de
Ernst, Traugh v.------------------------.
Esmeralda Mining Co., Great Eastern
Mining Co. v. -------------------------- tº
Etter v. Noble----------------------------
VOLUME 3.
Eddy, Flemington v.----------...---------
Edwards, Sarah A.---------...------------.
Elliott, W. K.---------------------------.
El Sobrante------------------- tº tº ºt tº dº ſº tº e º sº tº
Ellsworth, Milne v. -----------------...--
El Tajo ----------------------------------
Emmerson v. Central Pacific R. R. Co. --.
Emmert, David D. -----------------------
Engelman, Steele v.------...------------.
Ergler v. Walker----------------...--------
Erickson v. Anderson --------------- tº e º ſº ºf
Ernst, Marshal v----------------------- *
Eureka Springs v. Northcutt et al........
VOLUME 4.
Easton, Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific
Edelman, Smith v ------------------------
Elder, Fultz v. ----------------------------
Elliott v. Lee-----------------------------
Elliott v. Noel. . . . . ----------------------.
Ellsworth, Lucas v.---------------------,
Iºlmer v. Bowen --------------------------
Engle, Pickett v. ------------------------.
Ervine, Thomas--------------------------
Esler et al. v. Town Site of Cooke........
Ewing, Duprat v -------------------------
VOLUME 5.
Ebbott v. Schaetzel et al. (on review) ....
Eggert, Louis ----------------------------
Ellison, Snyder v.------------------------
Elwell v. Northern Pacific Railroad Com-
pany - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Emperor Wilhelm Lode.---------...-------
Ennis, W. B., et al.----- * * * * * * * * * * s is s is s = s. as
Erickson, State of Michigan v.--------...-
Evenson, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Mani-
toba Rwy. Co. v.------------------------
Eckles, Jean -----------------------------
Eddy v. England --...---- tº ºn s sº sº sº sº º ſº s e º sº sº, º as
704
430
704
280
117,271
55
92
587
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
15
Elder et al., Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v.
Ellis v. Moore. -------------..............
Elson, William C
Emily Lode
Ems, Van Gordon v.......................
England, Eddy v ---------............... e
Eshom, Brassfield v
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
VOLUME 7.
Eaton v. Shafer ----------------..........
Early v. State of California..............
lºck. Aloys et al--------------------------
Eddy v. England (on review)....... & Cº -> * * *
Edens, Jacob H.-----...--------------. tº sº sº º
Elliott v. Ryan--------------...--------. º
Emick, Conrad, v. ............ * * * * * * * * * * * *
Emma Lode.--...... * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
English v. Noteboom-----......... tº ſº a º ºn a º
Engram, Central Pacific R. R. Co. v.......
Ensign, Dwight W.-...--................
Evans, Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v.--...-
Evans (Joseph D.) v. Northern Pacific R.
VOLUME 8.
Eaton, Benjamin H
Edwards, Edwin ........... * * * * * * ºr a se e g º ºs e
Edwards, James
Elkhorn Mining Co., Bright et al. v.-----
Emblen, Reeves v.----------------..... * -
Engineer Mining and Developing Co ....
Engle, Beall v.----------------. * * * * * * * * * *
Bpley v. Trick ---------------------------
Erskins, Willis A.------------------------
Eshom, Brassfield v ---..................
Eveleth, Irwin--------------------------.
Everett, George B-----------------------.
VOLUME 0.
Eastlake Land Co. v. Brown
Eddy, Haling v -------------------------.
Elkhorn Mining Co., Bright et al. v ......
Emblen, Reeves v-----------------.......
Emmert v. Jordan-----------------...----.
Estey v. Wallace-------------------------
Evins, Lorenzo D.----------------------.
Page.
409
630
797
220
422
530
722
220
347
219
301
229
322
331
169
335
240
314
131
244
344
429
353
122
361
470
110
514
87
296
322 ||
337
Everitt v. Zimmerman et al..............
Bwing v. Rourke.........................
|F.
voLUME 1.
Favrow, Milam v.-----..................
Fenton v. Colwell ........................
Field, William C .........................
Fisher, Atlantic and Pacific R. R. Co. v...
Flannery, Cudney v .................... tº º
Flint and Pere Marquette R. R. Co.......
Flom, Torjus H...--------...............
Forrester, Atlantic and Pacific R. R. Co. v.
Fort Maginnis ----------------------.....
Fullen v. Thomas ----------..............
Fulton, Snodderly v......................
Flynn v. Stiles
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * & © - e º ºs as a g
VOLUME 2.
Farmer, Joshua............... • * * * * * * * * * *
Farnsworth, Burrows v. ..... * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Farson, John
Fenger, Isaac ---------------------------.
Fenian Lode
Fergus v. Gray
Ferguson, Hooper v.-...--...............
Ficker v. Murphy-------------------...--.
Field v. Black.--------------------------.
Findley, Susan E ................ tº º º ºn e º sº ge
Fisher, Nelquindos............... * * * * * * * is
Fitch v. Clark---------------------------.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Flemming, Roach v
Flick, Snavely v.------------------------.
Flora Bell Lode.-------------...----.....
Foley v. Brasch
Fond du Lac Reservation............... sº
Foote, George B
Fort Brooke, Fla... ---------...----------.
Fort Cameron Reservation...............
Foster, Francis M.
Poster, Frank.-----------------. - - - tº ºs e º a e
Foster v. Breen -------------------------.
Poster, McLean v -----------------------.
Fowlks, Hawker v. .......... * * * - tº ~ * * * * * *
Fox, Holz v.-----------------------------.
Fox, Moylan C. ---------------...... tº tº º ſº º
Fox v. Southern Pacific R. R. Co..........
Frank, Samuel M.-----------............
Freeland, Fleener v. .....................
Freeman v. Texas Pacific R. R. Co
French, William.........................
French, Wilson v ............... tº e º 'º - e. e º ºs
Fuller, William. ------------.............
Furman, Bennett v
Page.
437
297
58
475
552
773
VOLUME 10.
Eads, Weaver v-----------------------...
Eaton, Edwin J--------------------------
Edmondston, Raney v. --...-...------.....
Eisemann, Albert.---------- º a m e ºs as g s as a s = º
Elling, Lyman v
Elliott v. Ryan (on review).-----.........
Ellsbury, Alexander v. --.............. © &
Ellsworth, Danford v. ---...-...--.........
Elmore, Henry--------------------------.
Emblen, Reeves v. (on review)
Emerson, Roots 0 ------------------------
English, Jacob E
Epley v. Trick (on review).............. tº
Erie Lode v. Cameron Lode ..............
Ertel, Iowa Railroad Land Co. v.........
Evans, Joseph
Evans, Lunsford v.--------..............
503
584
249
621
635
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
VOLUME 3.
• * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Fallon, McDonald
Ferguson, Magalia Gold Mining Co. v. ...
Fink, Michael...-------------------------.
Fisher, Porter v.-------------------------
Flemington v. Eddy.-------------...-----
Fletcher, Page v ...... tº e º ºs e º sº e º ºs e e º ºs º e s a sº
603, 606
822
170
730
232
175, 574
53
162
766
558
628
290
550
235, 238
286
215
612
56
284
392
593
482
16
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
Page.
Florida Railway and Navigation Co. v.
Miller.--------------------------------- 324
Forbes v. Driscoll ----------------------- 86, 370
Fordney, Joseph W. --------------------- 149
Fort Brooke military reservation ........ 556
Fort Meade military reservation...: -----. 574
Fort, Sullivan military reservation. ------ 577
Forseth, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Mani-
toba RwV. Co ---------------------- • * * * 446
Fraser v. Ringgold.--------------------- 69
French, Cleaves v. ----------------------- 533
Frick, A. S., and J. S. Powell. ------------ 460
Friend, Showers v.----------------------- 210
Fritzsche, Edward F--------------------- 208
VOLUME 4.
Fagan v. Jiran. -------------------------- 141
Farrall, Jackson v. ----------------------- 337
Farrington, Geer v.----------- - - - - - - - - - - - 410
Fayant et al., Lyman v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * - tº 203
Featherspil, John C. --------------------- 570
Feller, Nicolas . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 194
JFeller v. Summers - - -, ------------------- 439
Ferguson v. Hoff... -------------- - ºr º - - - - - - 491
Ferrier v. Wilcox et al --- - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . 470
Fish, Frederick et al ----------- - - - - - - - - - - 467
Fisher et al. v. Salmonson. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 538
Fitzgerald v. Reid ----------------------- 177
Florey, Mathias . ------------------------. 112, 365
Florida Rwy. and Navigation Co. ----...-- 148
Foley, Simpson v.------------------------ 21
Freed, Frederick ...... • * * * s us s m - sº a s m as a • - a s 201
Freise v. Hobson. ------------------------ 580
French, Cleaves v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 99
Frost, Wenie et al. v . --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 145
Fultz v. Elder ---------------------------. 354
VOLU M E 5.
Fairchild, Lambert v.--------------------. 675
Faribault et al., Rue v. - ... - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. 260
Farnsworth v. Hudson. --...----------...-- 315
Farrington, Geer v. (on review). . . . . . . . . . . 257
Fideler v. Kurth . . . . . --------------...--.. 188
Filkins, Charles W. ---------------------. 49
Fisher, Stein et al. v.--------------------.. 671
Fleming et al., State of California v. ...... 37
Florida Rwy. and Navigation Co......... 107
Floyd, heirs of Isham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ------ 531
Forsyth, Watts v. -------------...--------. 624
Fort Brooke.--------------------------... 632
Fort Custer -----------------------------. 226
Fort Hays.------------------------------. 228
Fort Randall.-------------------------- .. 555
Foster v. Smith et al --------------...--...- 454
Freese, Herman. ---------------------- • * is 708
French, Peter, et al.......... --...------...- 19
Freše, Frederick W. --...--............... 437
Friend, heirs of William.................. 38
Fuss, Henry W -----------------...------. 167
VOLUME 6.
Falconer v. Hunt et al.........----------- 512
Felder, Stebbins v.------------...-------. 795
Fenno, William S ---...--...-----...------. 656
Ferguson, Magalia Gold Mining Co. v. ... 218
Page.
Fernandez, United States v............... 379
Fiedler, Henry W. . . . . ................... 705
Field et al., Warn v. ........ - - - * * * * - - - - ºg º º 236
Figart, St. Louis, Iron Mountain and
Southern Rwy. Co. v.................... 443
Findley, W. H. H. ........................ 777
Fitzsimmons v. Meder.................... 93
Flint and Pere Marquette R. R. Co . . . . . . 84, 92
Flint, A. E.----. .--------.............. 668
Fiorida Rwy, and Navigation Co......... 84, 92
Flynn, Selway v......................... 541
Fonts v. Thompson....................... 332
Fort Boisé Hay Reservation ............. 16
Fort Ellis.----------..................... 46
Forsyth, Griffin v......................... 791
Forsyth, Watts v.......................... 306
Freeman v. Central Pacific R. R. Co . . . . . . 249
Freeman, Pearsalland.................... 227
Frohne v. Sanborn. --..................... 491
Frost, Wenie v ........................... 175,539
Fruit, Henry D ----------------------...- 138
VOLUME 7.
Fargo, Candido v. ------------------------ 75
Farringer, Franklin.--------------------- 360
Favro, Ferdinand -----...----------------- 383
Fenno v. Brady ...-----------------------. 330
Ferguson, Smith v. ---------------...----- 194
Field, Central Pacific R. R. Co. v . . . . . . . . . 406
Fitzgerald, Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. . 228
Fletcher v. Gates. . . . . . . .----...- ... -----. 24
Florida Rwy. and Navigation Co. v. Board-
In&D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 56
Florida Rwy. and Navigation Co. v.
Dicks ---------------------------------- 481
Forgeot, Margaret ----------------------- 280
Forsyth, Rousch et al. v.----------------- 139
Fort Sanders. ---------------------------. 403, 430
Fuchser, Ulrich ------------------------- 467
VOLUME 8.
Farmer v. Moreland et al.---------------. 446
Flaherty, Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. 542
Fitzgerald, Reed v . . . . . . . . . . • * * * * * - - - * * * * 159
Florida, State of . ----...--------------. 65, 369. 380
Florida, Rwy. and Navigation Co., Del-
bridge v. ------------------------------- 410
Forward, James A. . .--------------------. 528
Frederick, Henry A.--------------------- 412
Freeman v. Lind------------------------- 163
Fuller, Zelia J.--------------------------- 371
Fullmer, Edward ------------------------ 614
VOLUME 9.
Fairbanks, Davis v. ---------------------- 530
Fairchild v. Des Moines Valley R. R. Co . 637
Findley, W. H. H. (on review).---------.. 5
Fisher, Martha W---------------------- º 430
Flambeau Indians. ----------------------- 392
Florida Rwy. and Navigation Co., Bul-
lard v ---------------------------------- 159
Florida Rwy. and Navigation Co., Din-
widdie v.--------, ----------------- tº s sº tº ºr 74
Florida Rwy. and Navigation Co. Ja-
cobs v. --------------------------------- 34
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
17
Florida Rwy. and Navigation Co. v. Wil-
Fogelberg, St. Paul, Minneapolis and
Manitoba Rwy. Co. v
Foreman v. Wolfe et al.----..............
Fremont, Town Site, Bundy v
Frost et al. v. Wenie (on review)
Funk, Mary E
* * * * g º ſº e s tº sº s ºs ºs º ºs ºs ºº e º me tº e º ſº tº e
Fail, Canning v
Farley, Jacob.--------------------------.
Ferguson v. Snyder.---------------------
Finity, Carson v. ----------...- * = • * * * * * * * * is
Flagstaff Townsite, Gonzales v . . . . . . . . . . .
Fletcher v. Roode............ ------------
Fogarty, Cyr et al. v
Forbes et al., State of Arkansas v
Fountain, Abram W
Fouts v. Thompson (on review). .........
Fox, Cobby v. (on review)
Franceway et al. v. Griffiths.............
Franklin v. Murch. --------...--...--...----
Fremont Townsite, Bundy v. (on review)
Fugelli, Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. ... .
Furguson, Crawford v.-------------------
WOLUME 1.
Gahan v. Garrett
Galloway v. Winston.--------------------
Garaghty, J.----------------------------.
Garcia, Juan Rafael..... -----------------
Gardner, George H. --------------------- wº
Gardner v. Snowden.--------------------.
Garlick v. State of California. --..........
Garrett, Gahan v -----------------------.
Genzel v. Gschwend.--------------------
Georgetown, Breckenridge and Leadville
R. R. Co. ------------------------------ e
Gieseke v. Kiwilian. --...--...------...-----
Gilbert v. St. Joseph and Denver City R.
Givens, Renville v. ----------------------.
Gjuve, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Mani-
toba RWy. Co. v.------...--., --, -------.
Gonzales v. Atlantic and Pacific R. R. Co.
Gonzales et al----------------- ſº s s is ſº a tº e º gº tº
Gordon, Eben M.
Gould v. Weisbecker. --...-------------- ſº
Graham v Hastings and Dakota R. R. Co
Grampian Lode.------------------------.
Griffes, Curtis v. -------------------------
Gschwend, Genzel v.----------------...--.
VOLUME 2.
10464 2
Page.
72
509
314
274
137
142
524
279
79
496
494
137
432
610
46
465
480
331
361
529
62
114
362
544
148
432
120
630
788
Page.
Genois, heirs of Bernard ................. 395
Gibbs, Robert T.-----------...----------. 679
Gibson, Stephen S ----------------------- 244
Giddings, James M ---...----------------- 409
Gilbert, Hughes v. ------...--------------. 756
Gilman v. Nolan .......-----. sº tº sº tº tº se e s is sº º º 66
Gilmore, Barbee v................. tº s º ºs º ºs ſº 146
Gjerberg, Corno v. --...------------------. 224
Glaze v. Bogardus ----------------------- 311
Gold Blossom Mine ................... --. 767
Goodnight v. Anderson ---...------------- 624
Gorgas, Cyrus A. ------------------------- 687
Gowen, Spithill v---...-------...--...----- 631
Goyne v. Mahoney ---...------------------ 576
Grandy v. Bedell.------------------------ 314
Grass, heirs of Antonio .......----...----. 394
Gray, Fergus v--------------------------. 296
Great Eastern Mining Co. v. Esmeralda
Mining Co.---------------------------. 704
Gregg, H. M.---------------------------- 827
Griffin, Keneage M.--...-----------. ----- 735,736
Griffin v. Marsh -------------------------- 28
Griffiths, Richard. ------------...--------- 256
Guiras, Hart v --------------------...----- 588
Gunning v. Heron -----------------...--. 176
Gunnison Crystal Mining Co ......... -- gº 722
Guyton v. Prince ------------...----------- 143
VOLUME 3.
Gallipean, S. M. Railway Extension Co... 166
Gamble, Goodrich v.--------------...----- 333
Gamble, Parker v. ----------------------. 390
Gardner v. Snowden --------------------- 257
Garvin, William ------------------------- 554
Gates, Bennett v. ------------------------ 377
Gates, Mary, administrator de bonis non- 598.
Givens, Renville v ---...------...---------- 557
Gjevre, Johnson v. ----------------------. J56.
Goodrich v. Gamble ---------------...----- 333
Gordon v. Wilson ---------...------...----- 592.
Grand Junction Townsite, Keith v.. -- - - - 356,431
Grand View Mining and Smelting Co.,
Bailey et al... --------- * * * * is e s = ºn tº sº s ºs º is e as º 386
Graves v. Keith ...----------------...----- 309
Gray, Texas and Pacific R. R. Co. v.----- 253.
Greene, Richard N ---...--...--........ ---. 349
Grijalva, Leon v.-------------------...----- 362
Grim, Fridolin ---------------------...-...- 202
Gujleckson, Helge ----------------------. 379
Guyselman v. Schafer et al. --............ 517
VOLUME 4.
Gann, Milton Townsite v ........... * , ºr a tº º 584
Garrett, Babcock v----------------------- 583
Geer v. Farrington. ---------------------- 410
Geisendorfer v. Jones ... -- * * * * * * * = e = • * * * 185
Gettysburg Lode, Southwestern Mining
Co------------------------------------- 120, 271
Gilbert v. Spearing---------------------- * 463
Gjevre, Johnson v.-----------------------
Glineicki, Hosek v ...---. tº as º º a s a ſm s e º ºs e º sº º is 385
Glover, C. R.--------------------- tº sº ºn s = º ºs º º 210
Graham, Fremont S.-------- tº gº tº es º gº tº gº º e º 'º º 310
Grant, William, et al.------------------- 58
18
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS,
Greenup, Hemstreet v.----------...--...--.
Greenwood v. Peters
VOLUME 5.
Gallagher v. Tarbox et al.............. --.
Gates, Elisha B.----------------------...-
Geer v. Farrington (on review). ..........
Gilbert, Houf v. --...---. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Gildea, McSherry v ............ . . . . . . . . . .
Glover, J. R. ----------------------------.
Good, Maria.----------------------...-----
Graham v. Southern Pacific R. R. Co . . . .
Grameng, Kelly v .--------------------...
Gray v. Ward et al..................... tº G
Great Western Lode Claim ..............
Greene, F. . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - ºg Cº • * * * - - * * * * * * * *
Green, Heman C . . . . . . . . . . s sº se s - * * * * s is s as as ſº
Green et al., Henyan v . . . . . . . . . . . .......
Green et al., Smith v. . . . . . . . . . ...... ---..
Greenhalgh v. St. Paul, Minneapolis and
Manitoba Rwy, Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . ........
Greer v. Brown ---------. . . . . . . . . . .......
Grey, McMahon v. --.....................
Griffin v. Central Pacific R. R. Co . . . . . . . .
Grijalva, Leon v.-----------------........
Goist v. Bottum ---.......................
Gale, H. A. ------------------------------.
Gaughran, Peter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... --.
Gardett, Southern Pacific R. R. Co. v . . . . .
Garlick, George R.----------------------.
Garriques v. Atchison, Topeka and Santa
Fé R. R. Co -------------. . . . . . . . . . ----.
Geraghty, Michael ------. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Giblin v. Moeller's heirs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Gilfillan, R. E.--------------------...----.
Gillespie, Raven v. --------...--------. ... sº tº sº.
Glover, J. R. (on revie W) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Goble, George H -------. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Golden Sun Mining Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Gordon v. Southern Pacific R. R. Co......
Graham, Ball v. -------------------------.
Graham, Martin ---------------------. . . . .
Grand Junction, Keith v
Gray v. Nye ------------------------------
Griffin, Bowman v. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Griffin v. Forsyth
Grimshaw v. Taylor (on review). .........
Gulf and Ship Island R. R. Co............
Gunderson, Berthe. --...-----------------.
Page.
493 || Geary, Central Pacfiic R. R. Co. v ........
237 Gehman v. Culp ----------...---...-...---
330 Gerhauser, Rosina T................. ſº tº ſº º
508 Goose Lake ------------------------------
363 Grable, Jackson v. ........................
221 Graham, Platt et al. v. ....................
Grant, Mortimer N., et al............. • * > *
Griffin, James W. . . . . . . . . . . .--...--......
231 || Griggs, Alexander, et al..................
207 || Grinstead v. Murphy.....................
257 | Grove v. Crooks.... ------------.....-----
238
585 VOLUME 8.
17 | Gage v. Lemieux. ----------------------..
196 || Gainer v. Paazig .---...--------...-......
332 Galvin, Sparks v ....... ------------------
611 || Gardner, Sylvester ---...------------------
410 Gilbert, Philoman D .----...----...--......
510 Gilchrist, David. ----......... -----------.
258 Gilford, Jacob A. . . . . . . . . . . . . tº º sº as a e º ºs e s as s a
557 Gill, Richard . . . . . . * * * * * * * * * *s is º a º ºs e - - © s e s =
684 Givens, Ambrose W. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
262 Gjuve, Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v.......
Godfrey, Richard ---...---...------------ e
565 Goforth, William. ------------------------
229 | Goodman, John . . . . . . . . . -----------------
58 || Graham, Platt et al. v. (on review) ... . . . .
12 || Ground Hog Lode v. Parole and Morning
96 Star. -----------------------------------
643
691 VOLUME 9.
657 || Gage v. Lemieux (on review). ---...--...--.
147 Galbreat b v. Maguire -----...-- tº tº º º ºr tº º º dº &
Gallahan et al. v. Sullivail -------- e - tº tº ſº º E &
Gibson v. Van Gilder. -------------------.
573 Gilchrist, Maloch v.----------------------
224 Gilmore v. Shriner - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - {º º tº º sº º E tº
756 Gleeson, Martin. ------. ------------------
310 Goforth, William (on review). --...--...--.
Graham v. Carpenter------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
543 Graves, Croghan. . . . . . . . .----------------
460 | Greene, McWeeney v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * - * * as
296 || Griffin v. Smith -------------------------.
353 Grigsby v. Smith. -----------------------.
240 Groom v. Missouri, Kansas and Texas
660 Rwy. Co. -------------------------------
665 Gumaer v. Carine .------...--------- tº º ºs º ºs º º
808
33 VOLUME 10.
407 Gabus et al., Davisson v.----. • * * * * * * * tº º &
767 Gage, Continental Gold and Silver Min-
633 ing Co. v - - - - - -------------------------
* | Galbraith, Isaac M. ......----------------
*4 Gale v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co........
* Gambler v. Sault St. Marie ------------...
* , Gardner v. Spencer et al..................
** Garnsey, Charles L. ......................
629 || Gau ger, Henry . . . . . -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gerold, Russell v. . . . . . . . . . . . -------------
Glafcke, Yates v. . . . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
470 Glenn v. Owens ..... --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - © s º gº tº
79 | Goldstein, Louisa . . . . . . . . .------------ •º e de
4.17, 559 Gonzales v. Flagstaff Townsite ----------
24 | Goode, Wilber v. . . . . . .----. -- - - - - - - - - - - - -
35 | Goodwin, Wood v ......... ---...---- its tº e º o
Page.
149
447
390
527
365
249
133
391
207
553
140
139
346
534
483
500
48
583
303
462
380
186
80
428
482
430
463
114
534
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * s = e = *
WOLUME 7.
Gardner, Alice M -------------...--------.
Garrett, Riley. ---------------------------
Garrison, Maggie A. --- . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gates, Fletcher v. ------------------------
Gates v. Gates.................. • * * * * * * tº e >
62
307
375
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
19
Grand Rapids and Indiana R. R. Co... . . .
Green v. Berdan-----------....----------.
Greene, McWeeney v. (on review)...... --
Gregg v. Hallock-------------------------
Griffin v. Pettigrew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .---.
Griffiths, Franceway et al. v ..............
Grunsfeld, Alfred -------------...--...----.
Gulbranson, Hagen v ................. --.
VOLUME 1.
Hagland, Gustavus ----------------- tº ºs e º ºs
Hall Jeremiah --------------------------.
Hardin, Frank P., et al...----------------.
Harris, Chauncey-----. ------------------
Haskins v. Nichols. -------. ---. ---------
Hastings and Dakota Rwy. Co., Graham v.
Hawkins, Calvin -------------------------
Havens and Haws, Osborne v............
Hay, John D -----------------------------
Hazel v. St. Paul and Sioux City R. R. Co.
Hechtman, J. F. -------------------------.
Herbert v. Reed -------------------------
Herring, John.---------------------------
Hewlett v. Darby ---...------------------.
Hickok, Sally ----------------------------
Hill, Lucinda ---------------------------.
Hodgert, Jane---------------------------.
Hogue, Challacombe v--------------------
Hooper, W. H. ---------------------------
Hoyt. Ella M.----------------------------
Hurlbut, P. D.------------------------- gº º &
VOLUME 2.
Hahn v. Spencer -------------------------
Hall, Charles.----------------------------
Halloran, Stone v------------------. tº º – º º º
Hallowell. J. W-------------------------.
Halsey, Silas. ---------------- st tº e º e º – tº -e ºs º ºs
Halvorson. Caroline.--------------------.
IIanford, E. Seymour, ----------- tº e - - - e º ºn g
Hanson v. Howe-------------------------.
Harkins, Dughi v -----------------. * * * * * *
Harper, Cora E -------------------------.
Harris, Albert G. ------------------------
Harris v. Radcliffe ------------ * * * * - - - - * ~ *
Harrison, F. P. - - - - - tº º e º ſº tº a se s s is tº me • * * * * * * *
Harrison, John
Harsh, Albert F -------------------------
Hart v. Guiras ---------------------------
Hastings and Dakota R. R. Co -----......
Hastings and Dakota R. R. Co., Bailey v .
Hastings and Dakota R. R. Co., Olsen v ..
Hancke, Knight v.-----------------------
Hawker v. Fowlks-----------------------.
Hawkins, Massingill v.------------......
Hays v. Parker and Northern Pacific R.
Page.
676 | Henderson, Martin v.--...-------------..
294 | Henneuse, J. F. ------...-----------------.
147 | Heron, Gunuing v----...------------------
373 | Herriman v. Herriman ....... --...----...-
510 | Hess, Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v........
691 | Hidden Treasure Lode...................
508 | Hileman and Clewish.----...-----, --------
238 | Hitchcock Brothers. --...--...------------.
Hitchman v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co...
Hite, Robert C. -------...------ tº gº tº gº tº º e º 'º -
Hoggin, J. B -----------------------------
Holterman v. Carter...... --...--...--...-- -
591 | Holz v. Fox ------------------------------
3, 5, 11 || Hooper v. Ferguson ............ • * * * * * * * - -
597 Hopkins, Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. ...
624 || Horner, Moore v ---...-------------------.
145 || Houge v. Tremain.----------------------.
362 | Houston v. Coyle.------------------------
482 Howe, Hanson v.-------------------------
405 || Hoyt v. Sullivan --...-------------------.
74 Hughes v. Gilbert.-----------------------
Hughes v. Tipton ------------------------
379 | Humble v. McMurtrie.-------------------
61 | Hunt, Austin v. ---------------. ---------.
438 || Hunter, Hiram T. ------------------------
301 || Hunter, Lay v ---------------------------
85 | Hurd, Joseph----------------------------
149 || Husted, Klock v -------------------------
103
632 WOLUME 3.
135 | Hadsell, Crooks v -----------------------.
560 | Hale, Robert S. --------------------------
67 Hall et al. v. Street ------------------. ---.
618 Hancock, Texas and Pacific R. Rwy. Co .
Hanley, Mary.--------------- a - - - - sº e s in ºr e =
Hartman v. Lea --------------- - e s tº sº e º is tº e e
228 || Hatch, Robert - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - tº e =
814 || Hawford, United State 8 v ................
104 || Hastings and Dakota R. R. Co ------...--.
735 | Hastings and Dakota R. R. Co. v. United
171 States----------------------------------
302 | Heitkamp v. Halvorson -----------------.
217 | Helen, Cochran and ----------------------
37 | Henrie, W. H. ---. ------------------------
446 | Henderson v. Crosby.------------------- e
220 | Hering v. Sidow. -------------------------
721 | Hicks v. BaiTum--------------------------
99 || Hicks, Anna -------------, ---------------
304 || Hickey, M.A., and Edward -------------.
147 | Higgins v. Wells ---------------------- * - tº
767 | Hodge, Thomas --------------------------
408 || Hotaling, Charles ------------ • * * * * * * tº sº ºn tº º
706 || Hotchkiss, Collin v.--...------------------
588 Hot Springs Reservation...... --...------.
27 | Howard, Thomas.----------------------- º
540 | Howard, Joseph W --------- tº º sº ºn sº ºn me s tº e º e º
501 | Howden v. Piper ------------------------.
188 Huk, Mann v.----------------------- e tº e º ºs
53 | Hunt v. Lavin.--------------------------.
121 || Huntley, J -------------- • * * * * * * * * * * g º e tº gº tº
Hutto, Kirtland v ---...--------------...--.
554
Page.
172
469
176
297
474
744
460
198
530
680
755
162
712
569
594
596
58
220
283
756
324
161
75
39
17
316
329
258
536
40
164
273
584
346
565
485
360
606
609
R. Co. ---------------------------------.
Hedionda Rancho. ------------------ tº e º is s
Heinlen, G. A ---------------------------.
Hempfling, Talkington's Heirs v.........
467 VOLUME 4.
459 Habersham, F. E. ---...----------- * * * * * * * *
46 Hall, Jeremiah ---------------------------
282
373
20 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
Page. Page
Hall et al., James v.---------------------- 552 || Huffman, Taylor v.................... º ºs ºr 40
Hallowell, Sievers v.--------...-----------. 578 Hunt, Corey v ... ------------------...--. 41
Ham, Kenneth McK. -------------------. 291 Hunter v. Orr---------------------------- 8
Hanson, Halvor ------------------------- 260
Harrah, Caviness v.---------------...----- 174 VOLUME 6.
Harden v. Central Pacific R. R. Co ....... 484 || Haggin, J. B ---------------------------. 457
Harrison, Luther-------...-----...--------. 179 | Hall v. Wade ..................... --...--. 788
Hastings and Dakota Rwy. Co. v. Halvorson, Kelley v.---------...----...--. 225
Whitnall.........------------------.... 249 Hancock v. Johnson ------............... 671
Hatch v. Van Dorn. ---------------...----- 355 | Harper v. O'Brien. --...--................. 572
Hause et al., Dayton v- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. 263 | Harris, Ariel C.----...----...------------- 122
Healey, Andrew J.--------...-----....... 80 | Harris, Henry H ------------...----..... 154
Heirs of Ambrose Lanfear -----.......... 129 || Harris v. Mayne (on review). . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Heirs of McLaughlin, Baker et al. v ...... 144 || Hastings and Dakota Rwy. Co .... 84,292, 661, 716
Hemstreet v. Greenup. ------------....... 493 | Hatfield, Smith et al.----...------------. 557
Hendry, George W. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172,263 || Hawkins, Central Pacific R. R. Co. v .... 382
Hibsher v. Stanberry et al -----------...-- 320 | Heaton, F. M. --------------------------- 649
Hickson's Heirs v. Witt -----...--...--... 422 | Heaston, B. F. --------------------------. 577
Hobson, Freise v - - - - --------------------. 580 | Heirs of Pa-pee-ze-see-wah............... 251
Hoff, Ferguson v ------------------------- 491 | Heley, William -------------------------- 631
Hoffman, Charles . ------...-...-----. º tº gº tº ſº 92 | Heming, R.T. --------------------------- 307
Hoffman, Shannon v. --...---...----....... 399 | Hemphill, James ------------------------- 555
Holdridge et al. v. Clark. ---...----....... 382 | Heney, Clement v.----------------------. 641
Holt, Kurtz v . . . . .----------------------. 56 | Herrell, Noah---------------------------- 573
Hopkins v. Daniels et al...----..... ...... 126 | Herrin, Elizabeth B. . . . ... --------------- 787
Hosek v. Glineicki - - - - ------------------. 385 | Herrmann, Hopkins v. --...--...----------- 599
Hoskyn, Joseph-------------------------. 287 | Hervieux, Jean B . --...------------------ 586
Houghton v. Junett. --------------------. 238 || Higgason, Murdock v.--------------..... 35, 57.1
Houmas Grant -------------------...------ 472 | Hildreth, Arnold v.-----------------...--. 779
House, Jonathan ------------------------- 189 | Hill, James ------------------------------ 605
Howard, Roberts v -------...---------...--. 561 | Hirsch, Albert. -------------------------. 518
Hudson v. Docking-----...----...------.... 333, 501 | Holland, G, W --------------------------- 20
Hunt v. Lavin -- ------------------------ 142 | Holland, William H. ---------...--------. 38
Huntley, Lewis M. -----...--...----. tº gº tº & ºn tº 188 Holmes, Lewis.---------------------...--. 762
Hooper, Henry -------------------------- 624
WOLUME 5. Hopkins v. Herrmann-------------------. 599
Hall, L. R. -------------------------------- 141 Howard, James M .---------------------- 101
Hall v. Dearth ------ -------------------. 172 | Howard, Atlantic and Pacific R. R. Co. v. 140
Hall, Robert, et al ------------------------ 174 Howell v. Bishop. -----------------------. 608
Hall et al., James v. (on review) . . . . . . . . . 256 || Hundemer et al., Bloss v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 342
Hamilton, Anderson v ------------------. 363 || Hunt et al., Falconer v. --...--.... ------ 512
Hansbrough, Henry C.-----------------. 155 Hunter v. Orr (on review) . . . . . . . . --..... 155
Hardin County -------------------------. 236 || Hussman v. Berry ---. ------------------- 375
Harris, E. W.--------------------------. 660
Harris, Cooper 0------------------------. 449 VOLUME 7.
Harris v. Mayne ------------- ----------- 599 || Haggin, J. B ----------------------------- 287
Hartzell, Thomas B ---...--...----...----. 124 || Hammond, Cassius C -------------------- 88
Hawes, W. F., et al ---...--...-----...... 224,438 || Hankanson et al., Churchill v ------------ 428
Hawke, Robert -------------------------. 131 | Hardee, D.C ----------------------------- 1
Heaton, F. M. ---------------------------. 340 | Harlan, Holiday v------------------------ 262
Heberger, Benedict v.--................. 273 | Harris, Henry P ------------------------- 371
Hegranes v. Londen . -------------------. 385 | Harry Livingston Lode ------------------ 319
Henyan v. Green et al..... --...----------. 684 || Hastings and Dakota, Rwy. Co. et al.,
Higgason, Murdock v.------------...----. 392 Blair v --------------------------------- 241
Hill et al., Bywater v --------...--------. 14 || Hastings and Dakota Rwy. Co., Cates v .. 223
Hill, Cyrus H---------------------------. 276 || Hastings and Dakota Rwy. Co. v. McClin-
Hodge, Leitner o ------------------------ 105 tock------------------------ tº us as as * * * * * * * * 207
Hoffman, John W -----------------------. 1 | Hause et al., Dayton v.------------------- 542
Hollants v. Sullivan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 || Haynes, Hunter v.----------------------- 8
Holmes v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co...... 333 | Hays, Abraham ---------------- tº dº º gº tº ſº gº tº is 99
Holter Lode .---------------------------. 255 | Hemsworth v. Holland.---------------- tº ſº 76
Hoode v. Sando et al ----...----. --------. 435 | Henry, H. L. ------------------------------ 71
Hotaling v. Curtier ---------------------. 368 | Herzog v. Neville .----------------------- 202
Houf v. Gilbert ---------------...-------. 238 | Hewit, Frank W. ----...----. ------ tº gº tº º gº - e. 488
Hudson, Farnsworth v. .................. 315 | Hickok, Chitwood v...... -- tº m e º º ºs e º us tº tº e º s 277
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
21
Page
Hicks, l'avid W..... * * * * * * * * * * * * g º is sº e s is sº a 462
Hildreth, Arnold v. (on review). --....... 500
Himmelsbach, Joseph. ------------------. 247
Hoebel, Lundy v ------------------------- 49
Hoffmeister, Henry ---------------------- 410
Holland, Hemsworth v . . . . . . . .--------.. 76
Holliday v. Harlan ----------------------- 262
Holman v. Barrick ----------------------- 504
Holt, Kingsbury v ----------------------- 9
Holston, Frank V. -------------------. --. 218
Hoskins, Overton v .--------------------- 394
Houck v. Bettelyoun --------------------- 425
Howard, Craig v ------------------------- 329
Hoyt, Schaber v . ---------...------------ 145
Hruby, Waclav -------------------------. 189
Huck v. Heirs of Medler. --...----...----. 267
Hultz v. Leppin ------------------------- 483
Hunter v. Haynes.---------------------- 8
Hunter, Lagier v. -----------------------. 92
Huntsman, Susan ------------------------ 34
Hupp v. Overall.------------------------- 11
Hurd v. Smith --------------------------. 491
Hurst, Baker v.-------------------------- 457
Hyman, Meyer et al. v.-------------------- 83, 336
VOLUME 8.
Hagerman, J. J., et al.--., ---------------. 183
Hair, James-----------------------------. 466
Hall, Violette --------------------------- 96
Hambleton v. Duhain et al. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 326
Hardee v. United States. --...----...------- 391
Harper v. Bell---------------------------- 197
Harris, Adam S -------------------------- 45
Harris, E. W. ----------------------------- 77
Harrison, James A. ---------------------- 98
Hastie, Addison W. ------...----------...-- 618
Hawblits, Smalley v.--------------------. 372
Hemsworth v. Holland (on review). ...... 400
Hewit, Frank W. (on review) ............ 566
Hickok, Chitwood v. (on review) ......... 448
Hoffman v. Barnes et al.-------------...--. 608
Holland, Hemsworth v. (on review)....... 400
Holmes, Asher v ------------------------. 396
Howard Prestina B---------------------- 286
Huck, Scotford v.------------------------ 60
H ughes, Parsons v ----------------------- 593
VOLUME 9.
Habersham, F. E. -----------------------. 611
Haines, Union Pacific Rwy. Co. v ........ 595
Hale's Heirs, Rosenberg v. -- . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Haling v. Eddy -------------------------- 337
Hall v. Fox. ------------------------------ 153
Hammon et al., Van Brunt v ............. 561
Hardee, D.C. (James Barbut) -----------. 514
Hardee, D.C. (Caleb Biggs) ---...----...--. 498
Harrenkamp v. Hively --...----. e sº tº sº e g we # e. 438
Hause et al., Dayton v. (on review)....... 193
Hawkins et al. v. Lamm ----------------- 18
Heckel, Lockhart v ---------------------. 304
Hendy et al. v. Compton et al------------. 106
Henley, John C -------------------------. 178
Henning, Richard T. --------------------. 382
Henry, Kimbrel v.----------------------- 619
Herrick, Neel v ....... tº tº º tº º e º ºs º º ſº º ºs e º ºs tº gº º 168
Hessong v. Burgan.............. & sº tº gº ºn tº º 'º gº
Higgins, Herbert ------------------------
Hill, Neil A.----------------------------.
Hindman, Hoffman v.-------------------.
Hively, Harrenkamp v. --........-------.
Hodge, Truman L.-.............. * * * * * * * *
Hoffman v. Hindman.....................
Hofwalt, Charles L..... * is tº sº tº tº tº sº e s is tº ºn tº ſº tº gº gº
Hoge, George et al.--------...--...--..... © tº
Honnold v. Cushing---------------------.
Hoover v. Lawton.--...------------------.
Horn v. Burnett. ---. tº as º is sº * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Horton v. Wilson ---...-----------------.
Hovey, Albert S ---...--------...---------.
Howard, Prestina B. (on review).........
Howe, Smith v -----......................
Howell, Stanton v.--...--------...--.......
Hughey v. Dougherty.----...............
Hull, Frank W.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * = m e º 'º
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
VOLUME 10.
Iſagen v. Gulbranson.---------...--...--.
Hallock, Gregg v.--...-------------------.
Halvorson, Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v.--.
Hamilton, Alexander.----...--...--......
Hannibal and St. Joseph R. R. Co........
Hansen, Mulligan v.-----------------...---
Hardin, James A ------------------------
Harrington v. Stockham et al. . . . . . .......
Harris v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co.......
Harten, Thomas D ---------------------..
Hartley v. Young -----------------------.
Harvey et al. v. State of California........
Hartzell, Thomas B.----------...-...--...
Hastings and Dakota R. R. Co., Olney v ..
Hauck, John C., et al......... & º a se me ºn tº e s sº sº,
Hausen v. Ueland.-----------...-----------
Hay v. Yager et al. ------...--------......
Headen, Lingle v.------------------...-----
Heirs of Partridge, Thompson v..........
Hellekson, Christopher ---...-...--------.
Henderson, Thomas E --...--...---......
Hermann, George F........ * * * * * * * = a - e = m e
Herre, Susan.----------------------------
Herriott, George et al. --...----...---...--.
Higday, C. L. ----------------------------
Higgins, Rohrbough v ---------...-...--.
Hinds, Whorton v.--------------...--. tº gº º ſº;
Hogaboom, Burgess v.-------------------
Hone, John C. ----------------------------
Hopkins, Henry St. George L............
Hornback v. Dailey ----------------------
Huerfano Valley Ditch and Reservoir Co.
Huling, Lewis C ----- -------------------
Hume, Brennan v ----. tº s º ºs e s tº gº e s is e e s is ºn sº º ºs
Huntoon v. Devereux. -------------------
Hurd, Northern Pacific R. R. Co ... .... * >
I.
VOLUME 1.
Illinois, State of... 3-...--.
Indian Widows, Rockwell v........ tº tº º ſº tº tº
Page.
353
646
194
81
438
261
81
232
182
273
252
560
670
497
648
29
60
401
225
545
238
373
15
351
610
311
313
402
130
181
217
681
136
391
273
105
153
107
229
266
326
166
513
385
136
152
470
493
472
318
171
83
160
408
683
504
22
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
Intervenor Mining Co., Tilden et al. v....
Iola Lode -------------------------------.
VOLUME 2.
Iowa Falls and Sioux City R. R. Co., Car.
rahar v.--------------------------------
WOLUME 4.
Illinois, State of.-...---------------------
Indian homesteads.----------------...-----
Iowa v. Ringsdorf.-----------------------
VOLUME 5.
Iverson v. St. Paul, Minneapolis and Mani-
toba Rwy. Co. --...----------- = ºr e º e º is sº º & tº
WOLUME 6.
Indemnity withdrawals. -- . . . . . 77, 131,328,
Iron Silver Mining Co. v. Mike and Starr
Mining Co -----...--...----------- • * * * * * >
Irwin, John C. ---------------------------
Ivers, Lyons et al. v.--------------------.
VOLUME 8.
Iddings v. Burns.----. * * * * * * * * * * * * s tº as e g º ºs
Inglet, Naphtali.--, ---------------------.
WOLUME 9.
Independence Lode ----------------. tº e as a s
Innerarity, Heirs of John.-------------..
Iowa R. R. Land Co. --------------------.
Iowa R. R. land Co. v. Sloan. -------...--.
Iowa, State of (Story County)............
Iron King Mine and Mill Site............
Isaak, Christian.------------------------.
VOLUME 10.
Icard v. Central Pacific R. R. Co..........
Illinois, State of.--------...--------------.
Illinois, State of (Cass County) ..........
Illinois, State of (Champaign County)...
Illinois, State of (Douglas County) ......
Iowa Railroad Land Company v. Ertel...
Irvine, Bickel et al. v.--...- ſº tº tº ºi º ſº tº tº e º m º ºs ºn
J.
VOLUME. 1.
Jacobs, Stewart v ---------............ & sº tº
Jackson v. Jackson ----------------...- tº ſº
Jackson, Packard v ----------------------
Jefferson et al., Brown v. ................
Jenness v. Cedar Rapids and Missouri
Page.
572
539
483
143
497
419, 456
224, 559
491
571
149
516
446
136
156
456
321
176
377
3.18
552
367
162
158
185
238
14
432
256
526
135
694
408
442
589
30
12
River R. R. Co -----------------------..
Johnson, Bradish . . . . . . . ------...--------.
Johnson v. St. Paul and Sioux City R. R. Co
Jones, John J.--------------------------.
Jones, W. A. ----------------------------.
Jordan v. Wright .....------------------.
VOLUME 2.
Jacklin v. Samuelson. --...---...--------.
Jackson, Thomas J. ---------------------.
Jackson, W. S..... tº sº sº º ºs ºs e º is sº ºn tº s ºs e º is a ºn s s as e
636
112
105
467
353
272
Jackson, Thompson v..... tº as sº º ºs º º gº tº sº º as sº sº º
Johnson v. Bishop ---....................
Johnson v. Burke ........................
Johnson, St. Paul and Sioux City R. R.
90." -------------------------...--...--
Jo-je-gah..... ºn is as e s is e º e
Jones, James A. ---------.................
Jones v. Pinkston........................
Jordan, Winters v.----...................
VOLUME 3.
Jackson Mining Co......................
Jackson v. McKeever....................
Jandon, P. B.--------...--------...--......
Jefferson, Kincaid v. ......... . . . . . . . . . . . .
Johnson v. Gjevre..... -- ..... . . . . . . . . . . .
Johnson, Hans.---------------------.....
Jolly Cobbler Lode -----...-----..........
Jones, James A. ---------------...--------.
WOLUME 4.
Jackson v. Farrell. --...--...---...--.......
Jacobs v. Champlin et al................ .
James v. Hall et al. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Jeffray, Mary E. --...----...... --...--...-.
Jenson, Douglas v-------...---------------
Jepson, Roberts v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... --...-.
Jiran, Fagan v . . . . . --------------------..
Johannessen, Pedersen v. ................
Johnson, William . . . . . . . . • * * * * sº sº tº s sº s º an e s s
Johnson v. Gjevre . . . . .-------------.....
Johnson v. Johnson. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Johnson v. Konold. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Jones, Geisendorfer v . . . . . . . . ... ----. . . . .
Junett, Houghton v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • ‘ºn º º
Jack, John. ------------------------------
Jackson, Lansing and Saginaw R. R. Co...
James v. Hall et al. (on review)...........
James et al. v. Nolan. . . . . ---------. -- . . . . .
Jarrett v. Missouri, Kansas and Texas
Rwy. Co . . . . . . . . . . . . .------------------
Jefferson v. Winter - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Johansen, John . . . . . . . . ------------------
Johnson et al., United States v . . . . .-----
Joline, A. A.----------------------------.
Jordan, John E.-------------------------
Jorgenson et al., Pederson v. --...-...-----
WOLUME 6.
Jacobs v. Cannon - - - - - - - - - - - - • sº as is s m e º 'º e º 'º
Jacobs v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co ......
Johnson, Hancock v. ---------------------
Jones v. Kennett. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Judd, Harvey G. ------------------------.
VOLUME 7.
Jacks, James K., et al.------------------.
Jackson, Delapp v.-----------------------
Jackson v. Grable. -----------------------
Jacobs v. Cannon (on review).----------.
Johnson, George W. ... ------------------
623
223
671
688
507
570
303
360
315
439
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
Page. Page.
Johnson, Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v . . . . 357 Koons v. Elsner..... --...----------...----- 65
Jones v. Campbell et al................... 404 || Korbe, Andrew - - -...-. as gº ºn sº sº º ºs º ſº Gº a sº sº $ tº ºs º is 133
9 ordan, Alice ---------------------------- 461 || Küfner, Southern Minnesota Rwy. Exten-
Sion Co. v. ------------------------------ 492
VOLUME 8.
Jackson, Preston B ...----...--------...-. 445 VOLUME 3
Jamison, William ------------------------ 235 | Keith, Graves v. . . . . . . . * * * * * * * is º ºs ºs e as s ºs e º ſº 309
Jasmer et al. v. Molka ---------------..... 241 | Keith v. Townsite of Grand Junction. ... 356, 431
Jeardoe v. Shannon ---...--...------------. 38 | Kelly, Wood v -----------------------. --- 418
Jenks, James A.------------------------. 85 | Kelsey, Sorrenson v.----...--------...----. 408
Jennings, Nathan T. --...-...----------... 53 | Kempner, Jacob...... * * = e tº ºt tº e s is º is sº sº e º e s sº s 464
Johnson v. Cleaveland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405 || Kemp, Wilmarth and............... * * * * * * 15
Johnson, Cresswell Mining Co. v. ... . . . . . 440, 443 | Kennedy, Bartch v. ...................... 437
Johnson v. Miller ----...----------------. 477 | Kenton, Whitford v. ..................... 343
Johnson v. Missouri, Kansas and Texas Kephart v. Macomber.................... 345
RWy. Co ----------...-- tº E tº s & sº e s ºn tº ſº º º is nº s ºf 588 | Kessel v. Spielman ---------...--...------.. 295
Kilpatrick v. White. --...---------...--... 507
VOLUME 9. Kincaid v. Jefferson.--------...----------- 136
Jacobs v. Florida Rwy. and Navigation King v. Leitensdorfer ---...--------------. 110
Co ------------------------------ .* tº e º is ſº * 34 Kirkpatrick, John ---------------------.. 238
Jasmer et all v. Molka (on review) .... ---. 490 Kirtland v. Hutto.----------------------- 560
Johns, Vandivert v ---...--------...------. 609
Johnson, Smith v. -----------------------. 255 VOLUME 4,
Jones, George T. ------...----------------. 97 | Kelley, Doyle v. ------------------...--...--. 190
Jones, Joseph W. -----------------------. 195 | Kelly et al., Shurtleff v. ....--..... ------. 448
Jones, William E -----------------------. 207 | Kennedy, Bartch v.---------------------- 383
Jordan, Emmert v.--------. ------------. 249 | Kern and Buena Vista Lakes....... ----- 416
Judson, Ware et al. v ..................... 130 || King, Fred ------------------------------- 253
King, Nelson v --------------------------- 303
VOLUME 10. Kingman Townsite ---------------------- 54
Jackson, McFarland v... ----------------. 405 || Knippenberg, L. and B -------- .* * * * * * * * * * * 477
Jackson, W. S.--------------. * * * * * * * * * * * g. 12 || Konold, Johnson v ---------...----------.. 90
Jacobson v. Remender ---...------...-----. 256 Krichbaum v. Perry --------------------- 517
Jansen, Costello v. --------...--. --...----. 10 Knutsen, Miller v ------------------------ 536
Jaramilla, McDonald v.------------...... 276 Krogstad, Ole O.------------------------- 564
Johnson, Andrew . . ... ------------------. 681 Kurtz v. Holt ---------------------------- 56
Johnson, Milum v.----------------------- 624
Jones, Milton ---------------------------. 468 WOLUME 5.
Jones, United States v ..... a s sº ºr sº tº dº e e s is a º ºt 23 Kansas, State of.------------------------. 243
Kansas, State of, v. United States........ 712
I K Kansas Pacific Rwy. Co., Scott v. ....... 468
© Kathan, Clark S ------------------------- 94
Keesee, Daniel.--------------------- tº e s sº a 534
VOLUME 1. Relly v. Grameng. ----------------------- 611 .
Kackmann, Peter -----. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * = s. s. 86 Kelly v. Maynard. ----------------------- 591
Kennedy v. Olson ------------------------ 139 Kelly v. Thorpe. ------------------------. 689
Ketchum Townsite - - - - - - - - - - - - - - # = ſº sº dº sº tº ſº 502 || Kincaid, John --------------------------. 25
King, Charles --------------- tº a s nº tº s sº s º sº as s = 121 || Kistler, Starbuck v - ............ * * * * * g º sº g 11
Knight, Richardson v. .... --------------. 126 Knepple, Todd-------------------...------. 537
Küfner v. Southern Minnesota Rwy. Ex- Enotts, Long v--------------------------. 150
tension Co.---------------------------. 351 Knox v. Bassett. ------------------------- 351
JKrichbaum v. Perry (on review)......... 403
VOLUME 2. Rropitzky, Wazuzer v. --................ 296
Ransas, State of.------------------------- 695 || Kurth, Fideler v..... gº tº sº s ſº is tº e º 'º a tº a s m º ºs º gº tº 188
Relly v. Quast.--------------------------- 627
Kernan, Mike---------------------- s sº gº tº s = 810 VOLUME 6.
Rerr v. Utah-Wyoming Improvement Co. 727 Kearney v. Alden et al. ... ---...--- ğ is sº ºr e º e 579
Kite, Thomas M ----------------------...-- 690 Keith v. Grand Junction. ---------------. 633
Rilpatrick, Emmert e---...--------------. 230 | Kelley v. Halvorson. --...----------------. 225
King v. Leitensdorfer.------------------. 374, 378 Kelly v. Butler...-------------, ----------. 682
Rlock v. Husted ---------------------.... 329 Kennett, Jones v. --...--------------...--. 688
Knapp, Joseph M. ------------------------ 763 Khern, G. A. ----------------------------- 580
Knauff, Schmitt v ------------------...--. 621 || Killin v. Suydam.... . . . .------------...--. 324
Enight v. Haucke ------ --------- tº tº Lº º gº tº ſº tº º 188 || Knowles, Smith v.-----------...--------. 294
Knudson, Vaughn v.--------------------- 288 || Kries, Carlson v .......... tº º s e s m e º ºs ºs º a tº e m 152
24
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
VOLUME 7.
Kane et al. v. Devine...------------------.
Karpes, Simon. --------------------------
Kearney, Thomas.-----------------------
Keech et al., Kiser v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......
Kelly, William S. ............. ---...-----
Kibling, C. A. ----------------------------
Kingsbury v. Holt ----------------...-----
Kiser v. Keech et al... -----------...--...--.
Knudson v. State of Minnesota ..........
Kokojan, Davidson v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kortsch v. State of Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . .
Kruger v. Dumbolton....................
Kundert, Paulus. -----------...----------
Kurtz v. Summers .......................
VOLUME 8.
Kelley, Campbell v. --------------........
Kelley, Lydia ---------------------------.
Keen, James C. -----------------------...
Kimberland v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co.
Kistler, Frederick. ----...--...----...--...
Knabe, Julius P ----------------------. . .
Knans, Benjamin P ---. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Knight, Thomas M., et al. . . . . . . . . . ......
R ries, Carlson v. (on review). . . . . . . . . . . . .
WOLUME 9.
Kamanski v. Riggs -----------...--.......
Kane, Samuel P. - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kavanaugh, John -----------...-----------
IKelley v. Moran . --...----....... * * * * * * * e º º
Kemp, William M. ----------------------. -
Kimbrel v. Henry. -- . . . . . . . . . * * * * * * * * * * * * *
King, Scott v -----------------------------
I(line et al., Ulitalo v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Knaggs, Annie -------------------------. .
VOLUME 10.
Kaminsky, Davis v. ----. . . . . . . w is a s tº * * * s s a
Raufman et al., Puckett v - - - - - - - - - - - - - * * -
Keigan, William H. -- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kellem v. Ludlow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kennedy v. Lowdell . . . . . -----------------
JKerry, Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v . . . . . . .
Keys v. Rumsey. ---------------------. ---
Kilgore, McKenzie v.---------...----- . . . .
Kline v. Stephan. ----- ------------------.
Eneeland et al. v. Norton -----...-- . . . . . . .
Knuttson, Miller v. -----------------------
Kopperud, J. H.---------------. ---------.
367
3 13
212
46
** *
4 O
322
239
3.18
1:32
74
96
297
186
186
383
268
581
439
619
299
377
49
346
410
651
560
268
290
558
322
271
93
36
439
75
401
487
409
125
416
354
Low, Alexander
362
Leonard, Sarah ---------------------------
Lessinger, John H-----...----------- -----
Levin, Benedict -------------------------.
Lewis, Critchfield v.......................
Lewis et al. v. Town of Seattle et al.... ...
Lewis, W. A.-----------------------------
Livingston, Bundy v.--......... * * * * is tº * * * *
Lockwood, Mary E.---...................
Longnecker, John.----...---------...--..
Lomem, Peder P.-----......... ----------.
Louisiana, State of ----...--..............
Louisville Lode. ... ----...-------...--...
Lowe, Charles W. ----. . . . . . . .----. . . . . . . .
Lunde v. St. Paul, Minneapolis and Mani-
toba Rwy. Co. -------------------------.
Lynch v. Merrifield............----...--...
VOLUME 2.
Lady Bryan Silver Mining Co . . . . . ......
Lake, Benjamin F. --------------...- * * * * * *
Lane, William. ---...--------... * - ºn s e º 'º - a s
Larabee, Clarence.----------------------.
Larsen, Olson v . . . . .--------...-----------
Las Vegas Town Grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Las Virgines Rancho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Lawrence, Charles A.--------------......
Lawrence, Joab -----------. . . . . .----- - - - v
Lawson, Clark v. --------------- - - - * * * * - * *
Leach, Jacob B. ----- - - - a tº sº - - - sº s - - * * = - - - - º
Le Cocq Cases, The ---...-----------------
Leitensdorfer, King v -----------...------.
Lemmon, Allen B ------------------------
Libby, England v. ------------------------
Liedke, Scott v. ----------------- - - - * * - - - e.
Lincoln Quartz Mine...--------------....
Linney, Barrott v. ----------------------.
Linstrom, C. A. . . . . . --...------------------
Livingston v. Page ----------------------.
Lohr, Cyrus W. -------------------------.
Loomis, Benjamin
Louisiana, State of . -----------------.....
Louisiana, State of, v. Baltimore ..........
Lowe, Heirs of John --------------------.
Lown v. Criswell.------------------------
| Luce, Samuel M. ------------------------.
343
Lucero y Labato, Pedro -------. ---------.
Lunde v. Edwards.-----------------------
593
Lurney v. Darnell.-----------------------
VOLTIME 3.
La Bolt v. Robinson ----------------------
Lang, Howard W ------------------------
Laring, Smyth v. -------------------------
Larson, St. Paul and Pacific R. R. Co. v . . .
Larsen, Christian G. --...-----------------
Lavin, Hunt v.--------...------------
Lea, Hartman v --...---------------------
Leavitt, Samuel G. -----------------------
Leech, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Mani.
toba Rwy Co. v.
LeFranchi, Giovanni ---------------------
Leitensdorfer, King v ...... -------------.
Leightner v. Hodges.--- . .---------------
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
125
127
535
300
508, 509
548
35
630
357
472
, 378
292
253
593
VOLUME 1.
Lange, Van Ostrand v --------------------
Langley, Arnold v. - - - - - - -
Larsen, Christian G. --...-----------------
Larsen v. Pechierer et al... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Larson v. Parks------------------------..
Larson v. Weisbecker .-----...-...-------
Latimer, W. C.---------------------------
Lebcher, McBride v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Leggett v. Cedar Rapids and Missouri
River R. R. Co. ------------------------.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
506
229
110
193
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
25
Page.
Leon v. Grijalva-------------------------. 362
Lewis, Mary----------- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 187
Lindberg, Anna G------------------------ 95
Littler, Nichol v.-- ---------------------- 224
Little v. Durant. ------------------ -----. 74
Litz, David P ---------------------------- 181
Livingston v. Roskruge .--............... 54
Livingston, Anna M ----------------...--. 193
Logan, South and North Alabama R. R.
Co. v.----------------------------------- 304
Lopez, Southern Pacific R. R. Co. v ....... 130
Los Putos Rancho ------------...--------- 78
Louisiana Swamp Lands..... as sº is º ºs º gº tº e º sº & 396
Lydenstricker et al., Myers v. -------. . . . . 531
VOLUME 4.
Lachance v. State of Minnesota --...----. 479
Laguna de Tache -----------------------. 566
Lakes Kern and Buena Vista..... --...-. 416
Landon, Martin V. --------------- * * * * * * * * 50
Lanfear, heirs of Ambrose ------ tº e a º ſº tº sº e 129
Larson et al., Olson v.------------------- 493
Lavin, Hunt v .-------------------------- 142
Leavenworth v. Bibbey------------------ 299
Lee, Elliott v. ---------------------------- 301
Lee v. Goodmanson.--------------------- 363
Lefferdink, Shoemaker 0------------------ 368
Legan v. Thomas et al -----------------. 441
Lesseps and Lepretre.------------------- 443
Lezeart v. Dunker et al.----------------. 96
Lilly v. Thom et al. ----------------------- 245
Linden, Richardson v . --...--...----------- 77
Litten v. Altimus. ----------------------- 512
Little Pet Lode. ------------------------ 17, 284
Longley et al., Murphy v. ---------------- 239
Louisiana, State of.---------------------- 524
Louisiana, New Orleans Canal and Bank-
Lucy B. Hussey Lode .................--.
Lum, Leon E.----------------------------
Lyons v. O'Shaughnessy ......-----------
WOLUME 6.
Landerkin, Mina.------------------------
Lawrence v. Phillips.....................
LeClaire, Ontonagon and Brulé River R.
Lee, Boorey v.......... gº tº º ºs e º is s = * * * * * * * * *
Leet, Allen v.---------- e s tº e s s = s. sº a sº * * * * * * *
Lent, Albert L.--------------------------
Lester, Taschi v.------------------------
Linderman v. Wait.......................
Link v. Union Pacific Rwy Co...........
Lock Lode. --...----- sº e º is ſº º sº e º e º gº ºs e g º ºs º ºs e e
Lockhart, John L.---------------------- e
Logan v. Smith --------------------------
Lowery, Soustilie v ------...............
Lukens, Rogers v.-----------------------
Lyons et al. v. Ivers.--...-----.......... º
VOLUME 7.
Lagier v. Hunter--------------------...--.
Larkin, Lizzie B -------------------------
Larson, Wright v -------------...--------.
Leach, Nuttle v. -----...--------...------.
Leadville Lode, Little Pauline v. ........
Lee, Elisha.--------------...-------. tº E. E. & ſº
Leger, New Orleans and Pacific R. R.Co. v.
Leppin, Hults v.-------------------------
Lerew, McCallen v.----------------------
Lincoln, Placer ---------------------...-.
Lindgren v. Boo. -------------------------
Little Pauline v. Leadville Lode .........
Lombardi, Daniel ---------------...--.....
Lundy v. Hoebel ---...--...------------....
Lynch, James. --------------- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Lynch, Patrick --------------------------
VOLUME 8.
Lachance v. State of Minnesota ..........
Laity v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co. --.....
Lamphere, A. T ----------------- a & º º º is as sº e
Lawrence, Sampson v -----------...--...---
Lee, David.-----------------------. ------
Lee, Mayfield v.--------------------...---
Lehman, Charles-------------------------
Leinen, George -------------------------.
Lemieux, Gage 0 -------------------. . . . . .
Lewis et al., Sioux City and Pacific R. R.
Co. v. -----------------------------------
Lind, Freeman v. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Logan, A. C., et a! ------------------------
Lord v. Perrin.---------------------------
Louisiana, State of.--------
Louisiana v. McDonogh et al. (on review).
VOLUME 9.
Lac De Flambeau Indians ----------.....
Ladehoff, Meyhok v.--------------.......
Laffoon v. Artis ------------------------ tº
Laird, Emily A., et al..... tº ſº º º ºs º ºs ºs gº tº º º tº tº tº ſº
Laird, Alonzo W.----- * - º ºs º º ºs º ºs º ºs º º ſº º º ſº º º
Page.
93
282
606
782
140
649
643
669
110
27
689
322
105
313
239
15
111
746
92
127
555
325
353
ing Co. v . ----------------------------. 473, 592
Lovell et al., Smith v -------------------- 267
Lucas v. Ellsworth. ---------------------- 205
Lyman v. Fayan et al... ------------------- 203
Lyon, Moore v. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 393
VOLUME 5.
Labardie, Eldolph. ----------------------. 630
Lake, Warner. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 369
Lamar, W. H. ---------------------------- 400
Lambert v. Fairchild. --...----. tº * * * * * * * * * 675
Lange, Thompson v- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 248
Latshaw, Dolman v ---------------------- 639
Leitner v. Hodge.------------------------ 105
Lennig, Charles.------------------------- 190
Leon v. Grijalva. ------------------------- 96
Lepretre, Lesseps v ---------------------- 357
Lerne v. Martin. ------------------------- 259
Lesseps v. Lepretre. --------------------. 357
Londen, Hegranes v.------. tº ſº e s = s. s is s sº e = * * 385
Long v. Knotts.-------------------------- 150
Loop w. Voorhees et al.----...-----------. 227
Louisiana, State of.------------------. 464, 514, 598
Louisiana, State of, New Orleans Canal
and Banking Co. v. ----...--------------- 479
Lowe, Robert ---------- tº dº sº ºs e º e º sº e º ºs e º e º a s 541
Love, James S --------------------------- 642
Lovell v. Mayne -----...- tº º 'º º ſº ºn tº ſº º ºs º ºs tº tº º º 56
179
378
134
511
461
486
233
139
292
163
536
127
134
392
327
279
12
527
26
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
Lamm, Hawkins, et al. v..................
Lane, Leimbach v -------...---------------
Laney, Thomas J -------...---...--------.
Langtree, Vibrans v.--...---------------.
Lannon v. Pinkston ---...-----------...--.
Lawler, Morrow v.--------...............
Lawton, Hoover v.----......--...---...--.
Leimbach v. Lane .----------------------.
Lemieux, Gage v. (on review) ............
Le Neve Mill Site. --...-- - - - - - -...----...-.
Leonard, Mary R. ---.....................
Leslie, Andrew -------------------------.
Lewis v. Clark.--------------------------.
Lewis v. Persons .........................
Lindback, John M. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Listoe, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Mani-
toba RWy. Co. v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... --.
Lockhart v. Heckel.......................
Loughrey et al., Webb v. .................
Louisiana, State of ................. • * * * * *
Lutz, George F -------------------------.
Lynn, Missouri, Kansas and Texas Rwy.
419
273
204
289
284
534
304
440
157
266
489
WOLUME 10.
Lane v. Southern Pacific R. R. Co. . . . . . . . .
Lamb v. Ullery--------------------------.
Largey et al. v. Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Lasell, Ryckman v. ------...-----...----.
Lea, J.C. --------------------------------
Linberg, A.------------------------------
Lingle v. Headen.--...----...----..........
Lone Dane Lode. --...------------------..
Loughrey et al., Webb v. (on review). . . . .
Lowdell, Kennedy v. --...-- - - - -...- .....
Ludlow, Kellum v.--------------------...
Lunsford v. Evans........................
Lux, Brunner v.-------------------------
Lydon, Michael --------------------------
Lyman v. Elling-----------------------...
VOLUME 1.
Magruder, John R. . . . . . ... ---...--.......
Maloney, Ramage v ---------------------.
Marchant, T. W. -------------------. . . . . .
Marks v. Bray. ---------...----------...--.
Martin v. Atlantic, Gulf and West India
Transit Co. --...--------------- * * * * g º º is
Martinez, Antonio D., et al. --...--...--...
Maughan, George W. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mayger, Robinson, et al.---------------..
McBride v. Lebcher. --...----------------.
McCarthy v. Darcey. --------------------.
McCarthy, Southern Pacific R. R. Co. v ..
McCains v. Texas and Pacific Rwy. Co. . .
McCormick, Shull v ......... ---...------.
McEwen, Charles........... ----. . . . . . . . .
McGrath v. Atlantic and Pacific R. R. Co.
McKay, John J . . . . . . . . ... º gº tº dº sº e º ºs º ºs º ºs e s s
McKinney, Ballard v.....................
McVey, Michael ....... & g º º ſº tº tº dº ſº tº sº tº $ tº gº tº s tº
454
528
156
620
652
459
59
110
153
53
302
268
560
211
352
553
474
526
461
528
420
359
18, 22
25
538
416
78
626
388
470
327
328
39
477
| McCaghren, James. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Melville & Kelly.----...............-----
Merrifield, Lynch v ......................
Merryman, David H .....................
Michigan, State of .......................
Mickelson, Weum v. --...--...----...--....
Milam v. Favrow ----...-............... .
Miller et al. v. Terry et al. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Miller, John W ..........................
Mills, M. W. B. --...----------------------.
Missouri, Kansas and Texas IRwy. Co . . .
Mitchell, Samuel M ---....... . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mondelbaum v. Turner...................
Moran, Shanley v . . . . . . . .----------...--.
Moore, John H.--------------...---------.
Morse v. Payne ---...----------...--...-...
Murphy v. Taft ---...----------...--.......
Myers et al., Roach v. --...-----..........
VOLUME 2.
Maid of Erin Mine ... --...----...--. . . . . .
Mariposa Quartz Mine. ---...--------...--.
Markley, Cole v --------------------------
Massingill v. Hawkins -------------------
Mattern v. Parpet------------------------
Maclay, William P.--... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mahoney, Goyne v ---------. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mahood, James -------------------------.
Mallett, White & ------------------------
Manderfield v. McKinsey ............ . . . .
Manhattan and San Juan Silver Mining
Mann, Luther.--------------------------.
Mariott, Miner v ------------------------.
Marsh, Clewell & .----------------...----
Marsh, Griffin v. --...---------------------.
Martin, Atlantic, Gulf and West India
Transit R. R. Co.-----------------------
Martin v. Henderson ---------------...---.
Martin, Richard ------------------------.
Martin, Smith v. ------------------------.
McCall v. Molnar ------------------------
McCarthy, John ------------------------.
McCauley v. Nordick. ----------------. . . .
Mc Slure, Thomas v ----------------------
McConliss, Rufus ------------------------
McDermott, William A. . . . . . --------...--.
McElrath, Carland v ---...-------------...
McFall, George -------------------------.
McGrew, Sim v ...... *
McKee, Rachel M.----------------------.
McKinsey, Manderfield & O'Connor v . . . .
McKittrick & Andrews. -- - - - - - - - - - ......
McLean v. Foster ...... s & sº sº ºs e º is tº tº a tº dº e s º gº tº
McLeod, Nelson v.-----------------------
McLeoud v. Weade----------------------.
McMaster, Samuel -----------------------
McMurtrie, Humble v. ------------------.
McMurtrie v. Wright -------------------.
McNeel, Davis v. -------------------------
McNeff v. Newman....... tº º gº ºn gº tº * * * * * * * * * s
Meilke v. Young ------------------------.
Meredith v. Atlantic and Pacific R. R. Co.
332
709
320
535
172
128
333
833
265
460
206
125
622
343
108
181
324
580
638
175,574
117
145
706
161
251
141
124
245
499
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
27
Merrill, F. H.--........ tº is is a s e º ºs e º 'º e s m = e s = 106
Millett v. Brown. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 230
Miller v. Stover -------------------------- 150
Milne, Andrew C------------------------- 261
Mine, The “A. Y.” ----------------------- 706
Bear River.------------------. 764
Bloomington ------------------ 757
Clara ------------------------- 722
Col. Hall.--------------------. 735,736
Corkscrew. ------------------- 763
Elkhorn ---------------------- 704
Fenian ----------------------- 704
Flora Bell.-------------------- 704
General Jackson ------------- 788
Gunnison Crystal.------------ 722
Gold Blossom ----------------- 767
Hidden Treasure.......... ---. 744
Lincoln ----------------------- 706
Mariposa --------------------. 755
Maid of Erin.----------------- 738,743
Sampson.--------------------- 698
Selah ------------------------. 766
Spencer.--------------------.. 709
Steel Spring. --. -------------. 799
Summit ----------------------- 762
Tabor------------------------- 709
Miner v. Mariott ------------------ as wº e - º º sº. 709
Minnesota, State of .--------------------. 642
Minton, Buchanan v. --...----...----------- 186
Mitchell, James.------------------------. 752
Molnar, McCall v------------------------- 265
Monagle v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co..... 529
Montana Improvement Co. --...-- • gº º sº º ºs º º 828
Moody, Herbert H ---...-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * 254
Moore, Alexander. ----------------------- 761
Moore, Campbell v ---------------------- wº 159
Moore v. Horner-------------------- - - - - - - 594
Moses v. Brown - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 259
Munter, Adolph. ------------------------- 197
Murphy, Ficker v. ----------------------- 135
Murray, Martha O ----------------------. 112
VOLUME 3.
Macomber, Kephart v.-----. ------------. 345
Magalia Gold Mining Co. v. Ferguson.--. 234
Maines, Supner J. ----------------------. 67
Mainville, Joseph, heirs of --------------. 177
Mangin v. Donovan et al.----------------- 565
Mann v. Huk----------------------------- 452
Mansfield v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co ... 302, 537
Marold, Smith v . . . . --------------------. 376
Marshall, James H---------- m s m = * * * * * * * * * 411
Marshall v. Ernest ----------------------- 279
Martin, Charles C ----------------------- 373
Martin, Beeken v------------------------- 502
Martin, Wither v ---. -------------------. 539
Martinson v. Rhude. --------------------- 500
Matthiessen & Ward v. Williams ---...--. 282
Maxfield, Mary A. --...-- tº e º 'º e s = * * * * * * * * * * 63
May, James H.--------------------------- 200
McAllister, Cram v.---------------------- 51
McAlmond et al., St. Paul, Minneapolis
and Manitoba Rwy Co. et al. v. ........ 527
McAvinney v. McNamara.---...--....... 218, 552
McCaghren, James ---...--.. tº tº tº E tº sº º º ſº gº tº E 266
Page.
McComb, Hugh H. and William A..... tº as 421
McCormick, James.---------------------- 555
McCracken v. Porter-----. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399.
McDonald v. Fallon........... --......... 56
McDonogh School Fund.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
McGarrahan v. New Idria Mining Co .... 422
McGee, Downs v............ * * * = <= E = tº gº tº sº e º 311
McKeever, Jackson v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 516
McKibben v. Donovan ................... 565.
McNamara, McAvinney v...... . . . . . . . . . . 552,218.
McNeil et al. v. Pace et al....... . . . . . . . . . . 267
McWilliams, Thorpe et al. v.--........... 341, 344
Mead, James-------...--------------------. 203
Meagher, Thomas ------............. .... 142
Meese v. Meese -----------............... 191
Mehlhaf, Jacob, and Johann Mettler...... 458
Merritt v. Short et al. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 435.
Mettler, Johann, and Jacob Mehlhaf. . . . . 458
Meyers v. Smith.------------------------- 526.
Miller, Beers v --------------------------- 185
Miller, Florida Rwy. and Navigation Co. v. 324
Miller v. Noble---------------------...... 9,
Miller v. Ransom -------------------...---- 367
Milne v. Ellsworth............... ----..... 213.
Mitchell v. Brown. --...--------------...--. 65
Mitchell v. Robinson.--------------...-.. 546
Moffat, Doty v --------------------------- 278
Moban, Butler v ------------------------- 513
Montague Placer Mine. ----...--......... 184
Moore, Campbell v-----------------------. 402
Moore, Campbell v . . . . . . .---------...---- 607
Mora Grant.----------------------------- 146.
Moraga Grant. --------------------. ------ 204
Morgan v. Doyle. ------------------------- 5.
Moses, Anna M -------------------------- 57
Munds, William ------------------------. 477
Munter, Adolph. ------------------------. 175.
Myers v. Lydenstricker et al..... tº s s sº tº ºs º ºs 531
VOLUME 4.
Maher, Strawn v. -- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ---- 235.
Mahin v. Chappell ------ * @ º 'º e º 'º º ºs º ºs º ºs e º 'º as 350.
Makinson, R. W. -----------. -------, ----- 165
Mann, Heirs of Walter A. Tauer v....... 433
Mannheim, Philipp ---------...--...--...--- 197
May, Henry B---------------------------. 557
McAllister, Cram v . . . . ------------------ 207 v
McBride, Mehler v. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * 184
McCabe, Atlantic and Pacific R. R. Co. v. 94
McCabe, Bernard ------------------------ 69
McCabe v. Nichols ----------------------- 94
McClellan & Bridges.-------------------- 550,
McIntyre, William E.--------...---------- 527
McLarty, William H--------...------...-- 498
McQuinn, John A.-------- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 329,
McTighe v. Blanchard ------------------- 540,
Mehler v. McBride. ---------------------- 184
Melcher v. Clark. ------------------------ 504
Merrill, F. H. . . . . ------------------------ 389.
Michigan, Cushing v --------------------- 415.
Miller v. Knutsen ------------------------ 536
Millis v. Burge.-------------------------- 446.
Mills et al., Winans to ---...------...-- - - - - - 254
Milne v. Dowling. ------.... e º s = e º ºs º ºn tº sº º º † 378.
Milton Town Site v. Gann..... ſº a ſº e º ºs ºs º º e ſº 584;
28
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
Page.
Minnesota, Lachance v. .... * @ º ºs º ºn s sº e º w w w º 479
Missouri, Kansas and Texas R. R. Co . . . . 573
Moat, Samuel ---------------------------- 365
Monroe Lode ---------------------------. 273
Montana Improvement Co....... -- . . . . . . 65
Moore v. Lyon -------------------- tº e º ºs º ºs e 393
Moorehouse v. Carey. --...----...--...----.. 111
Morfey v. Barrows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
Morrison, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Man-
itoba Rwy. Co. v. ......... - - - - - - -s as sº - - - - - 300, 509
Murphy, Jeremiah H ---................. 467
Murphy v. Longley et al..... --...--....... 239
Murphy v. Olson ---------------------... 291
VOLUME 5.
Macey, George W. et al. . . . .------------. 52
Mack, Walker v -------------------..... 183
Mackie, S. F ... --------------. . . . . . . . . . . 199
Marsh, Edward N.----------............. 96
Martin, Lerne v . . . . .--------------------- 259
Martin, State of California v . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Mather, Daniel.--------------...----...--.. 632
Matthiessen and Ward v. Williams (on
review) -------------------------------. 180
Mattson v. St. Paul, Minneapolis and Man.
itoba Rwy. Co. --...--...--------------... 356, 699
Maxfield, Porter v. ... -----------...- ..... 42
Maynard, Kelly v --------------...----... 591
Mayne, Harris v ---------...---------. . . . . 599
Mayne, Lovell v.------------------------- 56
McAndrew v. Chicago, Milwaukee and
St. Paul Rwy. Co-...- ...... --...--..... 202
McComb, Joseph H . --- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295
McGrann, Owen . ------------------------ 10
McKinney v. Dooley ----------------..... 362
McKissiek, Morrison v.----------........ 245
McLean, Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v . . . . . 529
McMahon v. Grey. --...--------......... 58
McSherry v. Gildea - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 585
Meecham, E. J . . . . .---------. . . . . . . . . . . . . 414
Merwin, Lottie -------------------------- 221
Michigan, State of, v. Erickson . . . . . . . . . . 681
Mille Lac Indian lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102, 54]
Miller, Ann E.---------. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 642
Miller, Hugh. ---------------------------- 683
Miller v. Miller.-----...----. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 605
Milliman v. Union Pacific Rwy. Co....... 553
Milward, Wass v . . . . ----- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 349
Minnesota, State of ----------...--------. 102
Missouri, Kansas and Texas Rwy. Co.... 280, 481
Missouri, Kansas and Texas Rwy. Co.,
Jarrett v.----------------- . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
1Morgan, Evan L ------------------------- 215
Morgan, Gudmunson v. ----------...----. 147
Morrison v. McKissick................... 245
Mountain Maid ------------------------.. 29
Murdock v. Higgason - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -...--. 392
VOLUME 6.
Macey, George W., et al. (on review). . . . . 781
Magalia Gold Mining Co. v. Ferguson ... 218
Maher, Wright v ---. ---------...--...----. 758
Mahl, Roberts v. --...--............--...--. 446
TMahony, Honora -----........ -----------. 606
Malcomb v. Williams ................. tº º ºs 766
400
93
287
702, 784
639
364
255
Manary, Thompson v
Marquette, Houghton and Ontonagon R.
R. Co ------------------------------ tº e º ºs
Marshall, Lula M.--....--...--..........
Martel, Etienne ------------------........
Martel, Israel.---------------------------
Martin v. Barker.---------...--...--.....
Martin, Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v ......
Matheson, Deakens v
Matthiessen and Ward
Matthiessen and Ward v. Williams. ......
Matz, Way v
Mayne, Harris v. ------------------------.
McCarty, John. --------...--------...-----
McClellan, Vargason v
McConaha, Eugenie et al
McCormack, Rhoda A.
McDonald, Osmundsen v. --...--...--.....
McDonough & Co. et al., State of Louis-
iana v.-------------------------- - * * * * * *
McDowell, Willis
McGurk et al., White v. . . . . . e - * * * * * * * * * * *
McIntyre, William E.--------...--...----.
McKenzie v. State of California..........
McLean, Weldon v. ---------------...----.
McMillen v. Blair
McNeal, M. B
McNeill, Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v . . . . .
McRae, Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. . . . .
Mecham, Bracken v.--------------------.
Meder, Fitzsimmons v. --...--...---------
Meguity, Clara L
Meier, Wade v. ---------------------------
Meilke v. O'Brien--...---------- - --...--.
Melvin et al. v. State of California. . . . . . . .
Meyer, Peter-----------------------------
Mike and Starr Mining Co., Iron Silver
Mining Co. v
Miller, Charles W.--------------...--...-.
Mills, St. Louis, Iron Mountain and South-
ern Ry. Co. v
Minnesota, State of.--...-----------------
Missouri, Kansas and Texas Ry. Co
Mobile and Girard R. R. Co
Moeller's heirs, Giblin v
Monroe, Smotel v
Montana Company. ------------------ ** * * *
Monterey, Pueblo of.-------------------.
Montgomery v. Pfeifer
Moore, Ellis v.---------------------------
Morrison, Clara.-------------------------
Moseley William H. et al... ----------...--.
Murdock v. Higgason
Murphy v. De Shane
Murray, James H.
Myrstrom, Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v...
tº E tº º ſº tº tº º ºs º - - - -º º ºs s sº tº º
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * sº as a
s sº * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * - dº º e º s ∈ s tº
* * * * * * - - - - - - - gº ºn tº gº gº º
- - - - - a tº * * * * * * - - - - - - e º ºs º is
* - - - - - - - - as as is e s m > - - - - - * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
• * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *s as an e
* * * * * *
* - - - - - - - tº gº ºs º ºs
tº g- º ºs e = * - - - - m ºn e s e e
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
VOLUME 7.
Mai Sou Island. --------------------------
Malone v. Union Pacific Rwy. Co.........
Manning, Patrick. -----------------------
Manuel v. Miller-...------------------- tº ſº º s
Martenson v. McCaffrey. ------------.....
Martin, William H. -- . . . . . . . . -----------
Martin, Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v......
13
245
433
315
351
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
29
Page
Masterson, C. P.------------------------- 172,577
Mathorn, Christenson v ................. e 537
Mayland, Smith et al. v.------------.. -- . 381
McCaffrey, Martensen v. ------------...-- 315
McCallen v. Lerew ---------...------...--- 291
McClellan v. Biggerstaff .......... . . . . . . . 442
McClintock, Hastings and Dakota Rwy.
Co. v.---------------------------------. 207
McCrea, Henry ------------------------- 578
McDonogh school fund....... ........... 152
McKillip, Michael.--------------...-...--. 455
McManus, Charles B.-------------------. 42
McMillan, John -------------------------- 181
McNaughton, John, et al ---------------- 543
Medler's heirs, Huck v. ............. ----- 267
Meyer et al. v. Hyman....... * * *- - - - - - * * * gº 83, 336
Michigan, State of. ---------------------- 243, 514
Middle Grounds, The -------------------. 255
Middleton et al., Campbell v. ..... -- - - - -. 400
Miller, H. C. ----------------------------- 316
Miller, W. H. --------------------------- 254
Miller, Manuel v ------------------------- 433
Miller, Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v ..... 100
Millican v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co. . . . . 85
Minnesota, State of, Knudsen v.---...... 424
Minnesota, State of, Kortsch v........... 313
Minnesota, State of, Sutton v ------------- 562
Mitchell, Joseph W. ----...----...--...--... 455
Moling, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Mani-
toba RWy. Co-v.----------------------- 184
Molino et al. Welch v - - - - - - - - - - - -...----- 210
Moklebust, Anton A.-------------------. 326
Morgan City ----------------------------- 143
Morrison, Driscoll v---------...----------. 274
Moss v. Quincey-------------------------- 373
Murphy, Grinstead v.----------.... ------ 553
WOLUME 8.
Madigan, Thomas. ----------------------. 188
Madison and Portage R. R. Co............ 428
Mahoney, Thrasher v -------------------. 626
Mason, George W.----------------------. 457
Mather, Daniel (on review). --...-...---. 505
Matthews, Vernon B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .---- 79
Mayfield v. Lee -------------------------- 461
McCabe, John --------------------------- 509
McDonogh School Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 463
McDonogh, John, and Co. et al.----------- 254
McDonogh et al., State of Louisiana v. (on
review) ---------- • - - - - - - - as sº sº, e - - - - - - - - - gº 134
McGurk et al., White v. (on review). . . . . . 155
McIntosh, Daniel R. --------------------- 641
McKay, John A.-------------------------- 526
McMillin, Griffith W----------------...--. 478
Meiszner, Frederick --------------------. 227
Memphis and Little Rock R. R. Co....... 427
Merrill et al., Allen et al. v.----------...--. 207
Merryman, Eden.------------------------ 406
Michigan, State of ----------------------- 308, 560
Miller, Johnson v.----------------------- º 477
Miller v. Silva. ----------------- * * - - - - e º sº e 480
Mills v. Muhlstein ----------------------- 395
Mimbres Mining Co.------------------...-- 457
Minnesota, Lachance v. ----------- tº sº ºn as ºs e tº 179
Minnesota v. Spence -------- tº º is º º ºs e º e º 'º º s 64
Minnesota, State of ..... tº e s tº e s a º e º ºs s sº ºn s an e
Minnesota, Starr v. --...--------------. * * * *
Missouri, Kansas and Texas Rwy. Co. et
al., Caldwell v.-------------------------
Missouri, Kansas and Texas Rwy. Co.,
Counterman v.--...--------------------.
Missouri, Kansas and Texas Rwy. Co.,
Johnson v.-----------------------------
Mitchell, Joseph W. (on review) .........
Molka, Jasmer et al. v.-----...-...--...--.
Montana, Territory of.--...----...-...----.
Moore, Farmer.--------------------------
Moreland et al., Farmer v ........ ---...--.
Morrison, Belliveaux v ........... tº s sº s º ºr e -
Mudgett v. Dubuque and Sioux City R. R.
Co. ------------ • * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Muhlstein, Mills v.-----...--...--...--------.
VOLUME 9,
Maguire, Galbreath v........ - - - e º 'º s sº º - - -
Maison v. Central Pacific R. R. Co .......
Male v. Heirs of Quackenbush ....... --..
Maloch v. Gilchrist. ---------------------.
Mapes, George W. -----------------------
Marceau, Odillon ------------------------
Martin, Samuel B ------------------------
Maske, Jefferson D --------------.
McClure v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co.....
McDaniel v. Bell.------------------------
McCrory v. Casteen.--------------------.
McHarry v. Stewart. ----------...---------.
McKallor, Charles W.--------..... ------
McMullen, Neal v. -----------------------
McPherson, Myers v. ............. ... * * * * * - -
McWeeney v. Greene . . . . . . . . . . ... --...--.
Meadows, Paris et al-...--------. . . . . . . . . . .
Meyer v. Mitchell. ----------...-----------
Meyer, Southern Pacific R. R. Co v . . . . . . .
Meyhok v. Ladehoff. ---------------------
Milne, Catherine -------------------------
Minehan, Hurot v. -----------------------
Miner, Abraham L.----------------------
Missouri, Kansas and Texas RWy Co.,
Groom v ------------------ - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Missouri, Kansas and Texas RWy Co. v.
Lynn ----------- • - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mitchell, Meyer v------------------------
Mjoen v. St. Paul, Minneapolis and Mani-
toba Rwy. Co --------------------------
Molka, Jasmer et al. v. (On review). --...--.
Montgomery v. Curl.---------------------
Moran, Kelley v.------------- • * ~ * sº tº e º ºs e a ºn
Morath, Eugene G. F. -...----------------
Morcom, Edmund F----------------------
Morgan et al., Watson v. -----------------
Morris v. Sawin ---------, ----------------
Morrow v. Lawler.--------------------- gº º
Mounger, John C. ------------------------
Munsell, Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v.....
Myers v. McPherson ---------------------
VOLUME 10.
Magnuson, Alfred --------- ºn tº º 'º - sº e º ºs ºs e º ºr *
Mahan, Chillson * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - s = • * * * *
Page.
32
570
237
588
268
241
55
621
446
605.
243
395.
350.
65
567
622
631
554
238
203
155
15
129
344
580
522
63
38
4l
287
250
327
529
545
408
264
489
287
246
490
57
581
541
103
75
52
95
291
237
63
20
30
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
Manitoba Mortgage and Investment Co..
Marsh, Blake v.-------------------------.
Maske, Jefferson D. (on review). .........
Maze, Nancy M ------------------------.
McClurg, Emma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -----------
McDonald, C. R. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -----
McDonald v. Jaramilla. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
McFarland v. Jackson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . tº sº º sº a
McFerrin, Wade. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
McHarry v. Stewart (on review). . . . . . . . . .
McIntyre, Archibaid. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
McKenzie v. Killgore . . . . . . . © º e º e s is sº º ... º E &
McMicken, Herbert, et al. . . . . . . . . . . . .....
McWain v. Stone.------------------......
McWeeney v. Greene (on review) ........
Mead v. Cushman . . . . . ----------. . . . . . . . .
Mease, Frank L. . . . . . . . . --...------------.
Mellbrath, Chicago, Milwaukee and St.
Paul RWy. Co. v. . . . . . . . . .-------------.
Merrill, F. H. ------------...--------...--.
Meyer, Lewis F. J.------------------.....
Meyer, Southern Pacific R. R. Co. v. ......
Miller v. Knuttson . --...... tº , s = e is s m e º sm s m e
Milum v. Johnson ---...------------------.
Mississippi, State of. --...- ... ...........
Missouri, Kansas and Texas Rwy. Co. v.
Beal
Morey, George H.----------...--.........
Moore, Richardson v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Moore, Sweetzer v. -- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Morrison, Thomas..... * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * s = *
Morton, Willamette Valley Wagon Road
Co. v. ------------------ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * sº tº gº
Moylan v. State of Oregon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mulligan v. Hansen.--------------.......
Murch, Franklin v -----........ ---.......
N.
WOLUME 1.
New Mexico and Southern Pacific R. R.
CO
Nickals v. Bird et al. ----. . . . . . . ºr e º ſº tº º żº º tº º
Nichols, Haskins v ----------------------.
Northern Pacific R. R. Co., Phelps v......
Northern Pacific R. R. Co., Pressey v ....
Northern Pacific R. R. Co., Trepp v ......
Norton, Vettel v
• e = s. s. as s = * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * is at º is º 'º ºf as sº ºr
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * g º ºs º as
WOLUME 2.
Na-wo-jo-jop-qua-kah
Nelson v. McLeod.--------------...--...--
Newman, McNeff v---------------------- { }
Nichols v. Benoit. --------. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *
Nickals v. Bird---------------------------
Nilson, Cook v
Noble, Etter v. . . . . . . . . --------. . . . . . . . . . .
Nolan, Gilman v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nordick, McCauley v
North and South Alabama R. R. Co......
* * * s s º º ºs tº º tº º te gº tº gº º gº tº gº is º e s e º &
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * tº tº s = &
Northern Pacific R. R. Co. . . . . . . . . . . . .511, 820,
Northern Pacific R. R. Co., Brown v
Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Curry ......
Northern Pacific R. R. Co. and De Graft
& Co. ---------- tº e º tº e º tº tº ſº tº ſº tº dº tº E tº º is º gº tº E = tº
213
276
405
14()
579
337
322
253
684
364
492
444
593
624
393
504
325
415
555
4.18
456
321
311
582
609
43
145
368
397
380
459
191
117
124
583
178
210
280
66
206
681
859
519
852
8
1
9
Northern Paeific R. R. Co. and Parker,
Hayes 9 ----------------...------------.
Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v Hess. . . . . . . .
Northern Pacific R. R. Co., Hitchman v ..
Northern Pacific R. R. Co., Monagie v. ...
Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Parker and
Hopkins ------------------------. ----.
Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Peone ......
Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Pressey. - ...
Northern Pacific R. R. Co., Prest v. ......
Northern Pacific R. R. Co., Talbert v . . . .
Northern Pacific, Fergus and Black Hills
VOLUME 3.
Naturalization case. ----------...--------.
Nall v. Pulver. --...---------------...-----
Neal, Adair v ---------------------------.
New Idria Mining Co., McGarrahan v. ...
Nichol v. Littler.------------...----------
Nielson, Duvall v
Noble, Miller v -------------------------.
Northcutt, Eureka Springs v. ............
Northern Pacific R. R. Co. ---...--.......
Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Burt ........
Northern Pacific R. R. Co., Clark v..... tº e
Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Mansfield ..
Northern Pacific R. R., Mansfield v......
Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Schoebe ....
s = * * * * * tº e º sº tº º sº º sº me wº tº e º º tº tº
VOLUME 4.
Nelson v. King-...-------------------------
New Mexico and South Pacific R. R. Co..
New Orleans Canal and Banking Co. v.
State of Louisiana. -------------------
Nichols, Benoit v. ------------------------
Nichols, McCabe v
Nicholson v. Duffy. --...------------------
Nimmo, Southern Pacific R. R. Co. v......
Noel, Elliott v
Nolan, Gervacio -------------------------
Norin, Austin v ---------------------. . . . .
Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v Burt . . . . . . . .
Northern Pacific R. R. Co., St. Paul, Min-
neapolis and Manitoba Rwy. Co. v. . . . . .
Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Urquhart . . .
* * s = sº sº tº sº sº tº º gº tº ºr s gº tº gº tº º sº s = º ºs º º
VOLUME 5.
Nash, Thomas. --------------------- - - - - -
Neilson v. Shaw. -------------------------
Nelson Lumber Co. ------------...--------
Nelson v. Phelps -------------------------
New Orleans Canal and Banking Co. v.
State of Louisiana. ...------------ ... º. º. º. º.
New Orleans and Pacific R. R. Co........
New York Lode and Millsite claim
Nolan, James et al. v
Northern Pac fic R. R. Co. ---------------
Northern Pacific R. R. Co., Centmer. v. ...
Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Clark
Northern Pacific R. R. Co., Elwell v......
Northern Pacific R. R. Co., Holmes v. ....
Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. McLean. ---.
Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Ostlund.....
Northern Pacific R. R. Co., Schetka v . --.
Page.
554
474
530
529
569
440
551
506
536
453
398
95
422
224
313
450, 478
490
158
302
303
525
473, 592
519
608
358, 387
598
193, 459
311
138
566
333
529
473
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
Page.
Northern Pacific R. R. Co., Whitney v. ... 343
Nye, William L. ------------------------- 154
Nyman v. St. Paul, Minneapolis and Mani-
toba Hwy. Co ----- ..------------------- 396
VOLUME 6.
Neff v. Cowhich -------------------------. 660
New Orleans, Baton Rouge and Vicksburg
R. R. Co - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------------- 84
New Orleans and Pacific R. R. Co . . . . . . . . 84, 93
New Orleans Canal and Banking Co. v.
State of Louisiana --------------------- 347
Newport Lode --------------------------- 546
New York Hill Mining Co. v. Rocky Bar
Mining Co ----------------------------- 3.18
Nichols, Dutton D --...-----------------. 442
Nilson v. St. Paul, Minneapolis and Man-
itoba RWY. Co-------------------------. 567
Niven v. State of California. ... ---...--... 439
Nolte, Richard--------------------------- 622
Northern Pacific R. R. Co. --...-...-------. 84, 93
Northern Pacific R. R. Co., Allen v. ...... 520
Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Anderson... 677
Northern Pacific R. R. Co., Bright v ..... 613
Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Burns. . . . . . . 21
Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Dudden . . . . . 6
Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Elder et al. 409
Northern Pacific R. R. Co., Jacobs v. . . . . . 223
Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Martin...... 657
Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. McNeill..... 804
Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. McRae...... 400
Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Myrstrom... 666
Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. United
States. --------------------------------- 292
Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Waughn..... 11
Nye, Gray v. ------------------------ tº gº tº dº is 232
VOLUME 7.
Neff v. Cowhick (on review). ............. 245
Neigel, Stoddard v.-------------------. tº ſº tº º 340
Nemitz, Rudolph. ------------------------ 80
Neville, Herzog v. ------------------------ 202
New Orleans and Pacific R. R. Co. v. Leger 487
Nitschka, Christoph --------------------. 155
Northern Pacific Coal Co ---------------. 422
Northern Pacific R. R. Co. --------------. 334, 450
Northern Pacific R. R. Co. et al., Ander-
SOD 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 163
Northern Pacific R. R. Co., Barr v........ 235
Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Bowman .... 238
Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Evans ...... 131
Northern Pacific R. R. Co., Evans (Joseph
D.) v. ---------------------------------. 244
Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Fitzgerald .. 228
Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Johnson .... 357
Nerthern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Martin...... 385
Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Miller...... wº 100
Northern Pacific R. R. Co., Millican v. ... 85
Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Taylor...... 148
Northern Pacific R. R. Co., Upman v ..... 298
Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Waldon..... 182
Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Wiley ...... 354
Noteboom, English v.--...-------...-----. 335
VOLUME 8.
Napthaly v. Bregard et al........... -----
Neff v. Cowhich --------------------------
Newman, E. S.---------------------------
New Orleans and Pacific R. R. Co........
New Orleans and Pacific R. R. Co., Victor-
Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Anrys ......
Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Dow. --.....
Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Flaherty....
Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Gjuve ......
Northern Pacific R. R. Co., Kimberland v.
Northern Pacific R. R. Co., Laity v. ......
Northern Pacific R. R. Co., Parker v .....
Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Urquhart...
Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Yantis ......
Northwestern Lode and Mill Site Co ....
VOLUME 9.
Nanney v. Weasa -----------...-----------
Neal v. McMullen.-----------------------
Neel v. Herrick -------------------------.
Neilson v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co. et al.
Nelson, Tucker v-------------------------
Nestor, Thomas. --------------------...--.
Newcomb, John P -----------------------
Newsome, John. --------------------- tº e º 'º
Nicholson, John W ----------------------
Nickel, John R.-------------------------
Nita v. State of Wisconsin ........ --.... tºp
Northern Pacific R. R. Co., Allers v ......
Northern Pacific R. R. Co., Catlin v ......
Northern Pacific R. R. Co., McClure v. ...
Northern Pacific R. R. Co., v. Munsell....
Northern Pacific R. R. Co. et al., Neilson v.
Northern Pacific R. R. Co., Offutt v. . . . . . .
Northern Pacific R. R. Co., Randolph v...
Northern Pacific R. R. Co., Reynolds v...
Norris, Alexander -----------------------
Norton v. Westbrook ------...------------.
Noyes Placer, Railroad Lode v. ..........
WOLUME 10.
Nelson, Tucker v. (On review).----------.
Newman, Stiles v --------------...---------
New Orleans Pacific Rwy. Co., Victorien v.
(on review) ----------------------------
Nil Desperandum Placer -----...--------.
Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Anrys (on re-
View) ------------ w is a sº e s as is s as ºs º ºs ºs e s s sº º 'º tº º
Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Brown......
Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Bogue ......
Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Fugelli.....
Northern Pacific R. R. Co., Gale v. --.....
Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Halvorson ..
Northern Pacific R. R. Co., Harris v......
Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Hurd .......
Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Kerry ......
Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Roberts. ....
Northern Pacific R. R. Co., Spicer et al. v..
Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Stovenour..
Norton, Kneeland et al. v .------------...
Norton v. Thorson et al............ ------
377
613
13, 359
362
389
542
380
3.18
378
324
365
58
437
606
522
168
402
520
542
556
234
388
385
452
423
155
237
402
407
416
156
376
455
26
491
Nuttle v. Leach -------------------------. 325
637
198
258
662
288
307
15
264
683
290
427
440
645
271
261
32
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
O.
VOLUME 1.
Oakes, Smith v.--------------------------
Off. Shelter v.---------------------------.
Olson, Kennedy v...... & s º as as tº se e is s sº se - ºn ºn e s as a
Oppenheimer, Isaac ---------------------.
Oregon Central Wagon Road Co., Baugh-
Oregon Short Line Rwy Co., Utah and
Wyoming R. R. Co. v.-----------------.
Oregon, State of Arant v. --...--...--...--.
Osborne v. Havens and Haws ........ . . . .
Overholt v. Dallas Military Wagon Road
Co
* * * = * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * - - - a gº ºs e º 'º - e s = *
VOLUME 2.
O'Connor v. McKinsey ...................
O'Dea v. O'Dea. -------------------------.
Ojo del Espiritu Santo -------------------
O'Kane v. Woody
Oldemeyer, Bykerk v
Olson, Bailey v. -------------------------.
Olson v. Hastings and Dakota R. R. Co...
Olson v. Larsen
Olson v. St. Paul, Minneapolis and Mani-
toba R R. Co. --------------------------
Oregon, State of.--------------------...--.
Oregon, State of, Arant v
Orr, Central Pacific R. R. Co. v.
Orvis v. Banks
Osborn Brothers -------...----------...--...-
Ovens v. Stephens.----...-----------------
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * s = s.
w w ºn tº - - - e s m º ºs º ºs me a ge
s e = * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * s e
VOLUME 3.
Oden, H.C ------------------------------.
Ohio, State of .--------...-----------------.
Ohio, swamp grant. ----------------------
Ojo Del Espiritu Santo . . . . . . . . . . • - - - - as an e
Olibas, Maria Guadalupe
Olson, Bowers et al. v
Oregon, State of . -----...--... 334, 440, 474,
Oregon, State of, Arant v. ---...- : . . . . . . . .
Orr, Corbin v. -----------------------...--.
Overfelt v. Tonningson.----...--..........
Owen, Eben, et al
Owen v. Stevens et al. --- - - - - - - - - - -...--.
VOI,UME 4.
Odegard v. Sto-he-gah
Olathe Placer Mine ---------... . . . . . ----.
Olson, Murphy v ------------------------.
Olson v. Larson et al.-----...--------------.
O'Neal v. Paquid-------------------------
Ordway et al ----------------------- • * * * * *
Oregon, State of.... ------------ • * - - - - - as sº e
Oregon railroad lands.--------------...--.
Osher, George
Owen, West v----------------------- tº e s a m
VOLUME 5.
O'Day, William M. ........... tº º ſº tº tº tº e º is a sº s
Oliver v. Thomas et al.----------------. º e
* * > - - - - - tº & 4- - - - - - tº sº gº º
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Page.
155
113
139
613
352
294
396
405
889
580
425
443
571, 583
390
59, 134
94
569
Page.
Oregon, State of............... º e ºs e º ºs ºs º ºs 31, 300,374
Oregon Central R. R. Co.................. 549
Orr, Hunter v ................ * * * * º ſº tº a º º ºs & 8
O'Shaughnessy, Lyons v.............. • * * 606
Ostlund, Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v..... 670
VOLUMIE 6.
O'Brien, Harper v. ....................... 572
O'Brien, Meilke 0 ...... - - - - - - - - - - - - tº a s as a me 287
O'Dea, John ---...--...---------........... 819
O'Donald v. State of California. .......... 696
Ohio, State of .---------- .................. • 348
Old Columbia Reservation ............... 43
Olson, Martha M. ....................... . 311
Ontonagon and Brulé River R. R. Co. v.
LeClaire. ----------------------------- 649
Oregon and California R. R. Co........... 84, 93
Oregon Central Wagon Road Co..... . . . . 84, 93
Orr, Isaac H. ---------------------------.. 365
Orr, Hunter v ---------------------------. 155
Osmundson v. McDonald. --.............. 391
VOLUME 7.
O'Connell v. Rankin. ---------...--........ 245
Oregon, State of.----------------....... - - 572
Oregon and Washington Territory R. R.
Co ------------------------------------. 541
Orr v. Breach ---------------------------. 292
Orth, Albert ---------------------------.. 445
Overall, Hupp v.------------------...----. 11
Overton v. Hoskins...---------...--- * * * * * 394
VOLUME 8.
O'Brien v. Richtarik..... --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 192
Odgers v. Central Pacific R. R. Co... . . . . . 520
Oklahoma Capital City and Townsite Co. 425
O'Neal, Patrick ---------------------...--. 137
Oregon, State of...-----------------------. 72
Owen, West v.----------------------...-- 576
WOLUME 9.
O'Connell v. Rankin (on review). ......... 209
Oregon, State of (on review) ----......... 300
Oertli, Arnold.--------------------------- 436
Offutt v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co - - - - - - 407
Olney v. Shryock. ------------------ ----- 633
Olson, Sivert------------------------...--. 629
Omaha Lands---------------------, ------ 326
Ontonagon and Brulé River R. R. Co ..... 227
Orr, S.N --------------------------------- 437
VOLUME 10.
Ohio, State of (on review) -----...--...----- 394
Olney v. Hastings and Dakota Rwy. Co -- 136
Oregon, State of.----------------------. - - 498
Oregon, State of, Boyd v. ----------------. 315
Oregon, State of Moylan v -----...-- * * * * * * 321
Ott v. Crawford -------------------------. 117
Owens, Glenn v ----------------------- © tº º 461
Owen, West v. (on review) - ........ ----. º 199
P.
VOLUME I.
Packard v. Jackson ------------------ tº ºs º e 105
Page, A. B ------------ - * g º e º sº e • e e s ∈ G e s - e. e. 614
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
10464—3
Page
Pagosa Springs ------------------ * * * * * * * * 562
Parks, Larson v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 487
Pascoe, William C. ----------------------- 50
Paso De Las Algodones ----------------- 166
Pechierer et al., Larsen v. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 401
Peone, Baptiste . . . . . --- - - - - - - - - - * * * * * * = tº 305
Perkins v. Central Pacific R. R. Co....... 335
Peter v. Spaulding ------------ ----------- 77
Phelps, William L. ----------------- & sº ſº º 4-3 4- 436
Phelps, Cole v.--------------------------- 109
Phelps, Herman L.---------------------- 84
Phelps v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co - - - - - - 368
Phillips, Barney ------------------------- 94
Pierce, Sarah E ---. ----------------- ---- 59
Pierce, State of California v. --...--------- 442
Pierro, John Marris. --...----------------- 303
Pinder, Adolphus. ----------------------- 66
Poor, Enoch W ---...---------------------- 130
Powers, John ---------------------------- 103
Presidio Military Reservation . . . . . . -- - - - 163
Pressey v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co..... 397
VOLUME 2.
Paddock, Lorenzo A. ----------. ---------- 72
Page Livington v ------------------------ 105
Paine, Egbert v -------------------------- 156
Palmer v. Clevinger.--------------------. 56
Parker, Hayes v ------------------------. 554
Parker, Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v.----- 569
Parpet, Mattern v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 272
Patton, Murray B.--. -------------------- 242
Peachy, August ------------------------ -* * 784
Peacocke, William Lloyd - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 765
Peninsular R. R. Co. v. Carlton and Steele 531
Peone, Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. ... --- 440
Perkins, William O ---------------------. 808
Peterson, William H. --------------------- 657
Petsch, Blum v. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 264
Pettigrew, R. F -------------------------- 598.
Phelps, Butterfield and------------------- 229
I'helps, Theodore M. --------------- a gº tº tº gº & 34
Phillips, Alonzo. ------------------------- 321
Pierce v. Benson ------------------------- 319
Pinkston, Jones v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 38
Plaisance v. Bradley.--------------------- 123
Plugert v. Eumpey ------------------------ 152
Pomeroy v. Wright. ---------------------- 164
Borter, Bishop v. ------------------------- 119
Porter, Eiizabeth ------------------------ 179
Postle v. Strickler. . . . . ------------------- 246
Powlison, Eugene Q. --...----------------. 323
Pressy, Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v . . . . . . 551
Prest v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co........ 506
Price, Charles M.------------------------ 687,.689
Prince, Guyton v. -----------------------. 143
Procop, Wesley -------------------------- 815
Pueblo of San Francisco - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.. 346, 353
Pueblo of San José ---...--...--. p tº º e s = e s s e 358, 361
VOLUME 3.
Pace et al., McNeil et al. v.---------------- 267
T’adia, Florentino - - -...---- tº sº e º 'º º ſº º is ſº e s tº º ſº 189
Page v. Fletcher.----...- ------------------ 397
Palmer, Joseph, et al --------------------- 549
Parker v. Gamble .------------- tº e º 'º gº tº e s tº ºt 390
Parkhurst, Davison v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -- - - -
Pattee, W. B. --------------...--------- gº tº dº
Patterson, Charles E.--------------------
Peck v. Taylor. --------------------------
Perkins, Charles L. - ... -----------------.
Perley, Crusaden v. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Perrine, Charles.-------------------------
Petrain, Josiah, et way. -----...-...-------
Phillipson, Andrew E., et al.... ........
Phillipsou, John.----------------...-------
Pickett, E. C. -----------------------------
Piper, Howden v.------------------------
Porter v. Fisher.-------------------------
Porter, Bishop v.-------------------------
Porter, McCracken v. - - - - - - - -...----------
Powell, J. S., and A. S. Frick. ---.........
Postle v. Strickler------------------------
Price, Williams v.------------------------
Pruitt v. Chadbourne ... --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pueblo of San Francisco.................
Pulver, Nall v.--------...-----------------
Purdy, Minerva H ---...------------------
Pyle, Josephus A. ------------------------
WOLUME 4.
Paquin, O'Neal v-------------------------
Parker v. Castle .--...----- a s sº sº sº E tº sº sº º sº ºf s （→ * =
Pate, Atlantic and Pacific R. R. Co. v. --.
Paulson v. St. Paul, Minneapolis and Man-
itoba Rwy Co --------------------------
Paulsen, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Mani-
toba Rwy Co. et al. v.--------------------
Pecard v. Camens. -----------------------
Pederson v. Johannessen- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pelerin v. Cutgers - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Percival v. Doheney. --------------------.
Percival et al., Woodward v.------------.
Perry, Krichbaum v. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Peters, Greenwood v ---------------------
Pfaff v. Williams et al. --------------...---
Pickett v. Engle--------------------------
Pleasants v. Dakota Central Rwy Co.....
Pointard v. Central Pacific R. R. Co ......
Pollitz, Edward--------------------------
Polson, Alexander -----------------------
Poole, Ross v.------------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Postle v. Strickler et al. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Power v. Barnes.-------------------------
Price, Tilton v ---------------------------
WOLUME 5.
Pankonin v. Crook. -----------. ----------
Pederson v. Jorgenson et al --------------
Penrose, William M----------------------
Perkins v. Central Pacific R. R. Co. ---...-
Perry, Krichbaum v. (on review). ... ....
Phelps, Nelson v. ----------------------- ſº
Porter v. Maxfield - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Pratt, Henry A., et al --------------------
Prince v. Wadsworth --------------------
Pueblo of San Francisco ----------------.
Puget Mill Co. ---------------------------
Putnam, Henry C ---------------------- tº º
145
399
100
398
361
230
84
52
251
232
152
J43
529
134
234
517
237
455.
522
523
353
326
364
116
227
432
123
456
12
179
155
403
329
42
299
483
258
22
34 DIGEST
OF LAND DECISIONS.
VOLUME 6.
Painter, Central Pacific R. R. Co. v . . ..... 485
Pa-pee-ze-see-wah, Heirs of v . . . . . . . ----. 251
Parks, W. W. S.-------...---------------. 549
Pearsall and Freeman. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
Pensacola and Atlantic R. R. Co. . . . . . . . . . 84, 93
Perkins v. Robson. ---------------------- 828
Peterson, Adolph, et al. -----------------. 3.71
Pfeifer, Montgomery v . . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - 364
Phillips v. Central Pacific R. R. Co - ...... 378, 576
Phillips, Lawrence v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --. 140
Pitt, Dorgan v. --------------------------. 616
Porter v. Throop ------------------------. 691
Porter v. White -------------------------. 335
Powell, D.C.-------------------------... 302, 552
Prescott, Nellie O. --- . . . . . . . -----...--... 245
Prue, widow of Emanuel. -- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 436, 812
Pueblo of Monterey. ------...----------... 179, 656
VOLUME 7.
Packard, Robinson v . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...----. 225
Palms, Francis, et al. . . . . . . . . . . . . --...----. 146
Park v. Terrell. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 440
Paul, Samuel K. . . . . . . . . .----------------. 474
Payne, John R. -- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . --------. 139
Payne v. Atlantic and Pacific IR. I. Co.... 405
Pettit v. Buffalo Gold and Silver Mining
Co ------------------------------------. 494
Pettit, Reynolds v. --...---------------.... 452
Phelps v. Rape --------------------------- 47
Phillips, Charles R. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363
Pine, W. S.-----------------------------. 547
Platt et al. v. Graham. - ... ----------...--. 249
Platt v. Vachon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .------- tº º sº ºn 408
Pratt v. A very et al. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .----. 554
Puget Mill Company . . . . . . --------....... § 01
Puyallup Indian Reservation . . . . . . . . . . . . 450
WOILUME 3.
Paazig, Gainer v.---------. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 346
Padgett v. Bell. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-----. 630
Palmer v. Carter . . . . . . . . . . . . . - * * * * - - - - - - - 544
Paours, Wenzel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 475
Parker, Edson O.----...-------. . . . . . . . . . . 547
Parker, Willis v. -----------. --- - - ------- 623
Parker v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co ...... 324
Parole and Morning Star, Ground Hog
Lode v --------------------------------- 30
Parsons v. Hughes ---...--...------. . . . . . . . 593
JPaulson v. Richardson. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 597
Payne v. Campbell. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .----- 367
Pederson, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Man-
itoba RWy. Co. et al. v.----...---------... 21
Pennell, Lewis H. . . . . . . . . . ... ----------.. 645
Perkins, Alfred G.--------------...------. 282
Perrin, Lord v.---------------------------. 536
Peterson, Lewis.--...--...--...-- . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Pierce, Jay.------------------------------ 73
Pierpoint v. Stalder....................... 595
Pike v. Thomas, ,------------------------. 493
Platt et al. v. Graham (on review) . . . . . . . . 482
Pollard v. Rethke et al.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294
Polzin, August. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . © - - - - a 84
Pratt v. Avery et al. (on review).......... 457
VOI,U ME 9.
Page, Baird's Heirs v.....................
Pairo, Richard E.----------------------..
Persons, Lewis v. -- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Peterson v. Ward
• * * * * * * * * * *s as s is as as * * * * * * * *
Pierpoint v. Stalder (on review)....... --.
Pinkston, Lannon v -----------------.....
Pope's Heirs, Burgess v. .................
Powers v. Courtney et al. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Poweshiek County (State of Iowa).......
Premo, George -------------------------..
Price, Conly v.--------------------------.
Purmort v. Zerfing. --...--...--...--...-----
VOLUME 10,
Page, Frank N.--------...--...--. . . . . . . . . .
Pannell, South and North Alabama R. R.
Patterson, Chapman v. --...--...--...-...--.
Pearce v. Wollscheid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Platora Townsite v. Redifer's Heirs
Prindeville v. Dubuque and Pacific R. R.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Q.
563
143
218
480
124
70
490
180
410
424
275
627
407
388, 391
373
551
VOLU ME 1.
Quinlan et al., Brown v. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Quinnilty, James and Dennis . . . . . . ſº e := - ºn a
VOLUME 2.
Quast, Kelly v. ...
Quintana, Fernando. ---------------------
Quinnilty, James and Dennis
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
VOLUME 5.
Quirk v. Stratton. --...-------------------.
VOLUME 6.
Qvamme, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Mani-
toba Rwy. Co. v.-----------------------
VOLUME 7.
Quincey, MOSS v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
VOLUME S.
Quigley, T. H. --...-------------------- tº º ºs
VOLUME 9.
Quackenbush, Heirs of, Male v. ---. * * * * * * *
Queen et al., Cady v ------------------- * - -
Quinn, Frank ---...--------------------- tº º
567
445
530
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
VOLUME 10.
Page.
Quam v. Brown. --...--...--. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 664
Queen et al., Cady v. -----------.......... 575
Querbach, Eberhard-------...--...-...----- 142
|R.
VOLUME 1.
Rael, Jesus Maria.----------...-- • * * * e e º º 283
Ramage v. Maloney. --------------------. 461
Ramirez, Sisto.--------------------------- 284
Ramon, Vigil Grant. ------------- * - e º ºs me a s 288
Rancho Alisal.--------------------------. 173
Ranch Arroyo Del Rodeo. --...------...--. 260
Ranch Buena Vista.--------------------- 210
Rancho Casmalia------------------------ e 229
Rancho Corte De Madera Del Presidio... 232
Rancho De Napa.------------------------ 246
Rancho el Sobrante. ------------...--...-- 181
Rancho Las Cruces ........ tº e º e s as as e º ºs e e º ºs 262
Rancho Mission De La Purisima......... 248
Rancho San Jacinto Nuevo y Potrero.... 179, 245
Rancho Santiago De Santa Ana.......... 213
Rebellion Mining Co. -------------------- 542
Reed, Herbert v -------------------------- 438
Reed v. Hoyt. ---------------------------- 603
Rees v. Churchill ------------------------ 450
teninger, William -------. ------------.. 596
Renville v. Givens----------------------. 480
Richards v. Davis.--------------------- tº ºn 111
Richardson v. Knight.------------------. 126
Rickard, Ewing v.------------------------ 146
Rico Townsite --------------------------- 556
Riggs, Isaac S---------------------------- 71
Roach v. Myers et al.------------------...- 464
Robinson et al. v. Mayger.---------------- 538
Robinson v. Roydor.--------------------- 564
Robinson, Sprague v .-------------------- 469
Rockwell v. Indian Widows .............. 90
Rosenberg, Southern Pacific R. R. Co. v .. 400
Ross, Sipchen v -------------------------- 634
Roydor, Robinson v -------------- * - tº ſº e º º ºs 564
Ruiz, Sturgeon 9 ------------------------- 490
VOLUME 2.
Rablin, William.--------------------- tº tº sº ºn 764
Radcliffe, Harris v.----------------------- 147
Ragan, Cedar Rapids and Missouri River
R. R. Co. v.------------------------------ 544
Rancho Buena Vista..... tº e º & sº e º 'º tº º ºs ºr .... 366, 370
Rancho Casmalia ------------------------ 465
Rancho El Sobrante.--------------------. 344
Rancho Hedionda. ---...--- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 467
Rancho Las Virgines -------------------. 345
Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana ..... tº e º 'º e 371
Raymond, J. B ------------------ tº º ſº -> * * * * * 854
Redding, Sellman v ---------------------- 270
Renner, Sarah.--------------------------. 43
Ressman v. St. Paul, Minneapolis and
Manitoba R. R. Co---------------------. 481
Reynolds v. Sampson.-----------...- & & sº tº º 305
Rice, C. A. -------- Fºº - - - - - * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 322
Richardson, Estella J -----------...--...--. 674
Robert, Buse v ..................... e e s m sº e
Rogers, Downey v.-----...--...........----
Rowen, Caledonia Mining Co. v..........
Rowland v. Clemens......................
Russell, Perkins -----....................
Rust and Criteser.--------...--------...--.
Ryan v. Stadler.-------------------------.
VOLUME 3.
Rahall, Southern Pacific R. R. Co. v .....
Rancho El Sobrante ------...--...----....
Rancho Los Putos -----...-----...........
Rancho San Rafael de la Zanja...........
Ransom, Miller v.------------------------
Red Cliff Indian Reservation ............
Benault Grant.--------------------------
Renville v. Givens ------------...---- - - tº dº tº e
Rhude, Martinson v.----. w - - - - e º ºs - ºl º, º is tº gº ºn
Richardson, Reuben ............... tº as e º º ºs
Richardson, Vasquez v.-----------...- tº tº
Ringgold, Fraser v.---------------- - * * * * *
Robbins, Noah. ----------...---------------
Robertson v. Southern Pacific R. R. ......
Robinson, Buckner H.----...-------------
Robinson, La Bolt v ---------------------
Robinson, Mitchell v ---------------------
Robinson, Sorensen v ------...-------------
Robinson, Turner v ---------------- * e s s a s
Roskruge, Livingston v.-------------...--.
Ross, Weimar et al. v.-------------------
Rowe, Witter v ..... - * * * * - e - - - tº º tº º - - © as gº as e
Russell, James---------------------------
Ryan, Brown v.--------------------------
VOLUME 4.
Rancho Laguna de Tache. --------...-- tº º
Rancho San Rafael de la Zanja ---...-----
Rasp, Blake v. ------...-------------------
Raymond, United States v. ......... tº e s m is
Rechenbach, Conk v---------------------
Redmond, Henry J ----------------------
Renault Grant---------------------------
Reid, Fitzgerald v. -----------------------
Reed, v. Southern Pacific R. R. Co.......
Revert & ReVert. ---...-------------------
Richardson v. Linden ------------------- º
Ringsdorf v. State of Iowa -------...------
Roberts v. Howard-----------------------
Roberts v. Jepson -----------------------
Robertson v. Southern Pacific R. R. Co...
Robinson, Stevens v.---------------------
Roderick, Patrick. --...----...-...- tº º ºs º ºs º º
Rogers, Samuel E ------------------------
Ross v. Poole ---------------------------
Ross, Weimar et al. v.------...-----------. *
Ryan v. Conley, jr., et al.----------------.
321
54
129, 441
449
59
566
482
277
439
106,257
558
11
177
256
Rabuek v. Cass - - - - - - - - - - - - - * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Raggio et al., Dunlap v. ----------- * - © tº e º 'º
Famage v. Central Pacific R. R. Co.......
Ramsey, George -------------------------
Rancho Buena Vista....... tº º e º e º 'º - e & tº º tº &
398
440
274,616
120
559
36
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
Rancho De Napa-...---...----------...--.
Rancho Los Prietos y Najalayegua ------
Ray, Stephens v -------------------------
Read, Gilbert E. --------------...--------
Reed, Clayton M. ... -
Rees v. Central Pacific R. R. Co
Reynolds v. Cole...... ------------------.
Richardson, United States v .............
Riggan v. Riley-------------------...----
Rinehart v. Willamette Valley and Cas-
cade Mountain Wagon Road Co........
Robbins, Rollins v.--------------------..
Robles, Cutten v -------------------------
Roberts, Oscar T
Robinson, Stevens v.---------------......
Robinson et al., United States v..........
Roe v. Schang . . . . . . . • * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Rollins v. Robbins. ------...--------.......
Rose, George-----------------------------
Rowe, Clark S ---------------------------
Rue v. Fairibault et al. . . . . . .
* * = - - • * * * * * * * * * * * * * ºn
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
VOLUME 6.
Rancho Buena Vista (on review)
Randali, Baldwin v. ---------------------.
Rashaw, Orrin C.-----------------------.
Rasmussen v. Rice ------------------.....
Raven v. Gillespie ----------------------.
Ray, William H. -------------------------
Raymond, Wiley v.---------------------.
Reed, George F-------------------------.
Reed, John H.---------------------------
Reynolds, Shelton v.---------------------
Reynolds, Senholt v.--------------------.
Rice, Rasmussen v. ----------------------
Roberts v. Mahl -------------------------
Robinson, Ward v.-----------------------
Robson, Perkins "...--...--------------------
Rocky Bar Mining Co., New York Hill
Mining Co. v.---------------. ---------.
Roeschlaub v. Union Pacific Rwy. Co.
Rogers v. Atlantic and Pacific Ił. R. Co..
Rogers v. Lukens.-----------------------
Ryan, Yentsch v -------------------------
Ralls, John ------------------------------
Range View Lode -----------------------
Rankin, James D., et al. -----------------
Rankin, O'Connell v --------------------.
Rape, Phelps v.--------------------------
Reed v. Buffington. ---------------------.
Reininghaus et al., Cutting v
Reynolds v. Pettit.-----------------------
Robinson v. Packard----------------------
Rock, Henly C ------------. -------------.
Rousch et al. v. Forsyth. -----------------
Rowe, Elias.-----------------------------
Rowena Lode ---------------------------.
Rudd, William G. --...--...-----------. ---.
Ruskrudge, George J---------------...-.
Ryan, Elliott v. --------------------------
Rymerson, W. L.------------------------.
Page.
320
43
133
313
413
62,277
555
253
595
650
635
366
392
111
370
394
685
361
458
260
41
408
570
755
340
340
246
794
563
617
241
755
578
828
3.18
750
565
111
368
454
318
411
245
47
154
265
452
225
191
129
397
477
167
509
322
177
VOLUME 8.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Richtarik, O'Brien v ....... • * * * - - - tº e º as as a •
Rico Lode ----------------------...--...--.
Robbins, David H........................
Roberts, Oscar T ........................
Robinson, F. C. --...--...-...---........ •
Ross et al., Schweitzer v .................
YOLUME 9.
Railroad Lode v. Noyes Placer...........
Randolph v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co....
Rankin, O'Connell v. (on review)..........
Redding v. Riley ...------------------. - - - - -
Reed v. Casner ---------------------...--.
Reeve v. Burtis
Reynolds v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co... .
Richards v. Ward
Ricker, Campbell v. ---------.............
Riggs, Kamanski v.---------.............
Riley, Edward -----------...-------...----.
Riley, Redding v -----------------...----.
Robertson, James H., et al.---------...--.
* * * * * * - - - º ºs ºs s a - - - e s s = * ~ *
Rohrbough v. Diggins... --------- - * * * * - - - -
Rosenberg v. Hale's heirs ---...----...- ..
Rothwell v. Crockett .....................
Ryman, James H. T. --...----.............
VOLUME 10.
Randall v. St. Paul and Sioux City R. R.
Co -------------------------------------
Raney v. Edmondston -------------------.
Rathbun v. Warren . . . . .
Ravezza v. Binum. ----------------------.
Redifer's Heirs, Platora Townsite v. - - - -.
Reed, Cole v.-----------------. ------ • * * - - -
Reese, Central Pacific R. R. Co. et al. v. - .
Reese, Hugh ----------------------------.
Reeves v. Emblem (on review). ........ * * *
Remender, Jacobson v ------------------.
Richardson v. Moore --------------------.
Riggs, Bosa B ----------------------------
Rinehart, L. B.---------------------------
Robbins, David H.----------------------.
Roberts, Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v.....
Robertson v. Ball et al.--------------...--.
Rockafeller, Sewell v.-------------------.
Rogers, Horace B., et al------------------
Rohrbough v. Diggins (on review) -...--.
Roode, Fletcher v
Roots v. Emerson ------------------------
Rosenthal, Elias -------------------------
Rourke, Ewing v. ------------------------
Rumsey, Key's v.-------------------------
Russell v. Gerold.........
Ryan, Elliott v. (on review)
Ryckman v. Lasell----------------------- ->
Page.
55?
192
223
409
423
202
70
26
416
209
523
170
525
584
156
605
55
186
232
523
297
308
161
89
600
387
111
694
424
588
281
541
600
256
415
526
169
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
S.
VOLUME 1.
Page.
St. Joseph and Denver City R. R. Co., Gil-
bert v --- - - - --------------------- • * * * 465
St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba Rwy.
Co. v. Gjuve ---------------------------- 331
St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba Rwy.
Co. ------------------------------- * * * * * * 378
St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba Rwy.
Co., Lunde v. ------...------------------- 357
St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba Rwy.
Co., Wenzel v ---...------. a s sº as as s is us e s e º ºs & 333
St. Paul and Sioux City R. R. Co. et al.,
Hazel v. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 379
St. Paul and Sioux City R. R. Co., John-
SOD 2) ... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • s sº a sº sº is sº * * * * * * * * * 366
San Juan De Las Boquilas y Nogales. ---. 167
Santa Rita Mines -----------------------. 579
Sawyer, Bronson v. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 107
Schappell, Weber v----------------------- 76
Schelter v. Off---------------------------- 113
Schofield v. Cole. ------------------------- 140
Schmidt v. Still will ---------------------- 151
Schneider v. Bradley---------------------- 132
Scott, Solomon. ------------------- - - - - - - - - 491
Scott, Thomas J -------------------------- 73
Sears, Becker et al. v.--------------------- 575, 577
Seattle, Town of, et al., Lewis et al. v.----- 497
Semper, Truax v. ------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - 141
Sewall, Edwin D.------------------------- 29
Sexson, Edwards v.-------------------...-- 63
Shanley v. Moran. ------------------------ 162
Sharp, Joseph D.------------------------- 100
Sheppard, George W.--------------------- 95
Sherreback, Peter------------------------ 223
Shonbar Lode ---------------------------- 551
Shull v. McCormick. ---------------------- 470
Sioux City and Pacific R. R. Co., Cooper
et al. v ---------------------------------- 345
Sipchen v. Ross--------------------------- 634
Skarstad, Ludwig P., et al ---------------. 56
Smith, Jones, et al.--------. tº a s = 8 ~ * * * * g e º ºs 615
Smith v. Oakes --------------------------- 155
Snodderly v. Fulton.--------------- as s e º e º º 457
Snody, Duthan B - - - - - - - - - - * = * * * * * * * * * > * * * * 532
Snowden, Gardner v.--------------------- 496
Southern Minnesota Rwy. Extension Co.,
Kufner v. --------------------- - - - - - - - - 35]
Southern Minnesota Rwy. Extension Co.,
Ward v.------------ - - - ---------------- 387
Southern Pacific R. R. Co----------------. 377
Southern Pacific R. R. Co., Emerson v. ... 390
Southern Pacific R. R. Co. v. McCarthy ... 626
Southern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Rosenberg. . . 400
Southwick, Wood v.-------- tº a sº tº me tº $ sº e º ºs e º ºs 119
Spaulding, Peter v------------------------ 77
Spores. Jacob----------------------------. 291
Sprague v. Robinson.--------------------- 469
State of California.--. ------------------. 312,320
State of California v. Alari---------------. 407,453
State of California, Garlick v ------...----. 494
State of California v. Pierce .............. 442
State of Illinois -------------------------. 504
State of Louisiana.----------------------- 508, 509
State of Michigan -----------------------. 514
698
305
73
157
142
263
292
184
575
766
270
613
324
240
282
154
364
841
328
635
299
299
173
240
523
State of Oregon, Arant v..... * } tº gº º ºs e º º tº gº tº ſº tº
Steele, Lydia -----------------------------
Stewart v. Jacobs...... as º gº tº º ºs tº tº gº tº e º tº dº º ºs s tº e
Stewart, Tomay et al. v.---...------------.
Stillwill, Schmidt v . . . ... ----------------.
Struble, Wolf v -...--...--------------------.
Sturgeon v. Ruiz.-------------------------
VOLUME 2.
Sampson Lode ....... * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * g
Sampson, Reynolds v -----------...--...--.
Samuelson, Jacklin v. ...--------...--...--.
Sandell v Davenport -------------------- gº
Sando, Amley v.-------------------------
San Francisco Pueblo....................
San José Pueblo ... --------........------
San Juan Lumber Company..............
Santiago de Santa Ana Rancho........ --.
Satterlee v. Dibble ----------...--...--...--.
Saunders, T. C. -------------------------.
Sayles, Henry P. ------------------------.
Schlater, Dickson v ---------------------.
Schmitt v. Knauf .----------------------.
Schwarz, Tupper v.---------------------.
Scott, Boulware v.----------------------.
Scott v. Liedke. --------...----...--------.
Sederquist v. Ayers.----...--------------.
Selah Lode.----------------------------- gº
Sellman v. Redding ------------...--------.
Sewell, Walker v. -------------------...--.
Sim v. McGrew. --------------- - - ------.
Shaffer, Lamon--------------------------.
Shelly, Bivins v ---------------------...--.
Sheppard, George W. ............ * * * * * * * *
Sherreback, Peter..... tº tº s s = * * g º ºs º tº tº gº º me tº m 'g
Shiver, Carter and .----------------------.
Shotten, John ---------------------------.
Slate v. Dorr ... ----------------.....
Slater, Aasland v .----------------------.
Slater, Anderson v -------...----...--------.
Slattery, Cook v-------------------------.
Sloggy, Blenkner v. ----------------------
Smith, Banks v ------------------- ------
Smith v Brandes. -----------------------.
Smith, John T.--------------------------.
Smith v. Martin -------------------------.
Smith, Samuel . . . . . --------------------.
Smith, Thoinas E -----------------------.
Smith, William V . . . . . --...--...--------.
Smith, United States v. --......... --...--.
Snavely v. Flick.-------------------------
South and North Alabama R. R. Co ......
Southern Colorado Coal and Town Co.,
United States v ----...---...----. . . . . . . . .
Southern Minnesota Rwy. Extension Co.
v. Küfner -----------------------------.
Southern Minnesota Rwy. Extension Co.,
Taylor v -------------------------------
Southern Pacific R. R. Co., Fox v - - - - - - - -
Southern Pacific R. R. Co., Troy's Heirs v.
Southern Pacific R. R. Co. (Branch) v.
Spellman, Townsend's Beirs v ...........
Spencer Case, The. -----...------ gº tº tº º e º º ſº tº
546
77
785
38
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
Spencer, Hahn v ------------------------- 228
Spencer Lode ---------------------------. T09
Spithill v. Gowen ------------------------ 631
Sprout, Buttery v. ... -----. • ‘s e º ºs e s s is ºf s = º ºs 293
St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba R. R.
Co., Olson v ------------ ~ s sm as ºr m a.m. ºn sº me • * * * * = 501
St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba R. R.
Co., Ressman v. -----. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * tº gº ºn 3 & 481
St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba R. R.
Co. v. Stacy ------------------ • *m as * * * * * * 510
St. Paul and Sioux City R. R. Co. v. John-
SOD1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 498
Stacy, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Mani-
toba R. R. Co. v.----------------------. 510
Stadler, Ryan v -------------------------- 50
Starr, Thomas --------------------------- 759
State of California. --...--- {º} tº tº # = n w tº is w = s. s. s is 643, 644
State of Kansas ----------------------. --. 695
State of Louisiana. --------------. . . . . . . . . 652
State of Louisiana v. Baltimore ...... . . . . 646
State of Minnesota. . . . . . --...--........... 642
State of Oregon -------------------------. 651
State of Oregon, Arrant v. .... ---........ 641
State of Wisconsin - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ... ----. 667
Steel Spring Lode. -- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 699
Steele, Peninsular R. R. Co. v . . . . . . . . . . . . 531
Stephens, Ovens v. ---------. . . . . . . . ----- 699
Stephenson, Ashley D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
Stewart v. Carr -------------------------. 249
Stohl, Jens------------------------------. 686
Stone v. Banegas and Halloran ........... 104
Stoner, A -------------------------------- 389
Stover, Burton v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---------. 585
Stover, Miller v.-------------------------. 150
Street, Willis F. ------------------------. 116
Strickler, Postle v. --------------...... --. 246
Strong, Richard P - - - - - - - - - - - - - * * * * * * * * * g. 409
Sturm, Southern Pacific R. R. Co. 3
(Branch) v . . . -------------------------- 546
Suckfull, Amadus.----------------------. 100
Sullivan, Hoyt v.------------------------. 283
Summit Lode ---------------------------. 762
Swan, Alexander, United States v. ....... 798
VOLUME 3.
St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba Rwy.
Co. v. Bond-------------------------- * * * 50
St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba R
Co. v. Cowles. -------- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * - - - - - 226
St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba Rwy. .
Co. v. Forseth -------------------------. 446
St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba Rwy.
Co. v. Leech ---------------------------. 506
St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba Rwy.
Co. et al. v. McAlmond et al. --...--..... 527
St. Paul and Pacific R. R. Co. v. Larson ... 305
St. Paul and Sioux City R. R. Co . . . . . . . . . 410
St. Paul and Sioux City R. R. Co. v. United
States. --------------------------------. 504
Sanders, Basil C-------------------------. 299
San Francisco Pueblo Lands...----------- 528
Sankey, Thompson v. -------------------. 365
San Rafael de la Zanja Rancho........... 438
Santee Sioux Reservation. ... -- * * * * * * * * * * 534
Sawyer & Waite ---...--...--------------- 54
Schafer et al., Guyselman v .............. 517
Schoebe, Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. .... 183
Schooley, Wallace v. ---...----...----...-. 326
Scott, John Wren, heirs of....... ----...--. 72
Seeley, Dudgeon v.--------...--........... 567
Seeley, Sullivan v ...................... -- 567
Shonbar Lode. ... ---...--...-------...----- 388
Short et al., Merritt v .................... 435
Showers v. Friend.--------...--------..... 216
Sidow, Hering v.------------------------- 473
Sioux Indian Reservation................ 288, 598
Smith, A. P. ------------------------------ 34()
Smith, Caldwell v ---...--------...-...----- 125
Smith, Cleary v. -------------------------- 465
Smith v. Marold. . . . . . . tº a s as a s = * * * * * * * * * * * * 375
Smith, Meyers v. ... -----...... --...-... 526
Smith, Staab v . . ... --...------------. . . . . . 320
Smyth v. Laring. ------------------------- 376
Snody, Duthan B.. ----------------...----. 520
Snowden, Gardner v. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . 227
Sohn v. Texas and Pacific Rwy. Co . . . . . . . 122
Sorenson v. Robinson. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
Sorrenson v. Kelsey ---------............. 408
South and North Alabama R. R. Co . . . . . . 27.4
South and North Alabama R. R. Co. v.
Logan---------- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 304
S. M. Rwy. Extension Company v. Galli.
Pearl - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 166
Southern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Bryant ...... 501
Southern Pacific R. R. Co. v. California. . . . 88
Southern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Lopez ...... . I 30
Southern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Rahall....... 321
Southern Pacific R. R., Robertson v . . . . . 256
Southern Pacific R. R. Co., Swanson v. ... 285
Southern Pacific R. R. Co., Whitcher v . . . 459
Spalding, Jesse ---...-----------. . . . . . . . . 319
Spencer, Reuben . . ------...---------------- 503
Spielman, Kessel v ---------. ------------. 295
Spink, Lewis F--------------------------. 543
Staab v. Smith---------------------------. 320
State of California. ---------....... . . . . . . . 327, 492
State of California v. United States. . . . . . . 521
State of California v. Dodson........ . . . . . 306, 424
State of Ohio. --------------------. . . . . . . . 571, 583
State of Oregon. ...------------. 334,440, 474, 595, 608
State of Oregon, Arant v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467
Steele v. Engelman. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ---.. 92
Steele, Charles W -----------...----------. 115
Stevens et al., OWen v -------------------- 401
Street, Hall et al. v.-------------------.... e 40
Strickler, Postle v. ----------------------. 42
Swaim, Call v ---------------------------- 46
Sweeten v. Stevenson. --...--...-------...--. 249
Sullivan v. Seeley . . . . .------------------- 567
Sutley, William R. ------------------...--- 248
Swanson v. Southern Pacific R. R. Co. . . . . 285
VOLU ME 4.
St. Lawrence Mining Co. et al. v. Albion
Consolidated Mining Co . ----...----. . . . 117
St. Paul and Duluth R. R. Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . 407
St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba Rwy.
Co ------------------------------------ 127
St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba Rwy.
Co. v. Bakke ..... * = * * * * * * * tº º e s ∈ tº º sº e º se is e 279
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
39
Page.
St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba Rwy.
Co. v. Bollman ------------------ . . . . . 206
St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba Rwy.
Co. v. Carlson ------------------------ • * 281
St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba Rwy.
Co. v. Morrison ------------ - - - - - - - - - - - 300, 509
St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba Rwy.
Co. v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co...... . 426
St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba
Rwy. Co. et al. v. Paulsen . . . . . . . . • * * * 232
St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba Rwy.
Co., Paulson v - - - - --------------. . . . . 251
St. Paul and Sioux City R. R. Co. v. United
States.--------------------------------- 75
Salmonson, Fisher et al. v.---------------- 538
San Rafael de la Zanja.------------------ 482
Samson v. Southern Pacific R. R. Co...... 357
Santa Clara Mining Association v. Scorsur
et al ----------------------------------- 104
Schaetzel, Jacob ------------------------- 28
Schaetzel et al., Ebbott v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 587
Schlein v. Central Pacific R. R. Co . . . . . . . 401
Scorsur et al., Santa Clara Mining Asso-
ciation v ------------------------------- 104
Seaman, F. A. ---------------------------. 446
Seeley et al., Churchill v. --...-----...----. . 589
Shannon v. Hoffman ---------...----------. 399
Sheldon, E. P., et al ------....... ---...--- 506
Sherman, R. M., et al. -------------------- 544
Shinnes v. Bates - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------- 424
Shoemaker v. Lefferdink ..... --..... . . . . . 368
Shurtleff v. Kelly et al ------------------- 448
Skagen, Burkholder v. --------------...--. 166
Skelton, John --------------------------- 107
Sievers v. Hallowell............ & e º sº º sº as s as sº 578
Simpson v. Foley------------------------. 21
Sims v. Busse et al ----------------------- 369
Smith & Crawford ----------------------. 449
Smith et al., Croughan v - - - - - - ........... 413
Smith v. Donogh et al ---------------...--. 304
Smith v. Edelman ..... * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 168
Smith v. Lowell et al.-----------...----- • sº tº º 267
Smoke-House Lode ---------------------. 555
Snider, Walker v. --------------------...-. 387
Snow-Flake Lode ----------------...----- 30
Southern Minnesota R. R. Co. v. Bottomly 208
Southern Pacific R. R. Co. -- . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 15
Southern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Cummins . . . 98
Southern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Nimmo...... 100
Southern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Reed . . . . . . . . 256
Southern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Robertson -. 242
Southern Pacific R. R. Co., Sansom v . . . . . 357
Page.
142
Southern Pacific R. R. Co. v State of Cal-
ifornia -------. • * * * * * * * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 437, 579
Southern Pacific R. R. Co., Story v........ 396
Southwestern Mining Co. v Gettysburg
Lode.--------------------- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 120, 271
Spearing, Gilbert v.---------------------- 463
Spink, Lewis F--------------------------- 292
Spring, Donly v -------------------------- 542
Spur Lode ------------------------------- 160
Stanbery et al., Hibsher v. --...--...--...--. 320
Stanton v. Durbin.----------------------. 445
State of Arkansas. -------------- iſ is is tº gº tº sº sº & 295
State of California, Baker v .............. 137
State of California, California and Oregon
State of Illinois -----. . . . . . . . . .
State of Iowa v. Ringsdorf................
State of Louisiana . . . . . ...... ----...-----
State of Louisiana, New Orleans Canal
and Banking Co. v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
State of Michigan, Cushing et al. v .......
State of Minnesota, Lachance v
State of Oregon ------------...-----------
Stevens v. Robinson......................
Stinka, Wisconsin Central R. R. Co., v. ...
Sto-he-gah, Odegard v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Story v. Southern Pacific R. R. Co . . . . . . . .
Strawn v. Maher ... ... • * * * * * ~ * * * * * * ſº ſº ſº sº as as
Strickler et al., Postle v
Stroud v. DeWolf ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summers, Feller v.---...---------....... ſº
Sylve, heirs of Pierre A., et al. .......... .
VOLUME 5.
St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba Rwy.
Co., Iverson v . . . . ----. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba Rwy.
Co., v. Greenhalgh
St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba Rwy.
Co., v. Nyman ---...--------------------.
St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba Rwy.
Co., Mattson v
St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba Rwy.
Co., v. Vanuest -------------------------
St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba Rwy.
Co., v. Evenson. -----------------------.
Sadler, Albert H. ------------------...--.
Sanford, George E. ...... * * * * * * * * * * * * * = sº º ºs
Sando et al., Hoode v
San Francisco, Pueblo of.................
Schaetzel et al., Ebbott v. (on review) - - -.
Schang, Roe v . . . . . . . * * * * * * * * *
Schetka v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co - - - - -
Schick, Charles H. --------. * * * * * = * tº E tº gº º tº
Schweitzer v. Wolfe. ----...--------------.
Scott, Lewis E., et al
Scott v. Kansas Pacific Rwy. Co..........
Seal, Crowston v
Shafer, John -----------------------------
Shanley, James
Sharrar v. Teachman et al.--...-----...--.
Shaw, Neilson v.-------------------...----.
Simie, Turi O
Simon, Stephen
Smith, Bachman v.-----------------------
Smith et al., Foster v --------------------.
Smith, State of California v
Smith v. Green et al....... ğ ºn tº ſº & & s = s. º ºs ºs ºs º g
Snider, Walker v -----. * º ſº º is tº º ºs & B is tº º is is º ºs º ºs
Snyder, Dillivan v.-----------------------
Snyder v. Ellison -------------------------
Sompayrac, A. E. (Lettrieus Alrio)
Southern Pacific R. R. Co., Brady v
Southern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Burlingame .
Southern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Dooley ......
sº º sº º ºr s = * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * g º e º is sº
* * * * * s = e s & s as a sº sº sº e s sº m & s = º ºs
473, 592
415.
479
225, 549
551
344
309
396
237
225
394
439
293
586
565
396
356, 699
205
144
303
535
435
483
205
394
473
151
353
158,613
407,658
415
380
40
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
State of Colorado
|
Page.
Southern Pacific R. R. Co., Gordon v ..... 691
Southern Pacific R. R. Co., Graham v. . . . . 332
Southern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Patrick
Brady ---------------------------------- 399
Spong, Samuel W -------...----...--------. 193
Starbuck v. Kistler.---------------------- 11
State of Arkansas . . . . . . . . . -- - - - - -...----- 636
State of California v. Fleming et al. . . . . . . . 37
State of California v. Martin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
State of California v. Sinith...... . . . . . . . . . 543
State of Kansas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . --------- 243
State of Kansas v. United States. ......... 712
State of Louisiana, New Orleans Canal
and Banking Co. v.---------------------. 479
State of Louisiana -------------------. 464, 514, 598
State of Michigan v. Erickson ... ---...---. 681
State of Minnesota. ---------------...----. 1\}2
State of Oregon -----------------------. 31, 300, 37t
Steatle, George----...--...-----------. . . . . 233
Stein et al. v. Fisher ---------------------- 67 |
Stephens v. Ray. ----------------------. -- 133
Stephenson, Mary C. ---------------- • * - - - 264
Stevens v. Robinson. ----------------...--. 1 11
Stone, Hiram H. .------------. . . . . . . . . . . . . 527
Stratton, Quirk v. --...----. ----. s º º sº e º - - - - 210
Sturm, Matthew. --...--------------------. 205
Sullivan, Hollants v. --...----------------. 115
Sweayze, Stephen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 570
Swinson, Gotthelf v ---------------...----. (557
VOLUME 6.
St. Louis, Iron Mountain and Southern
RWy. Co . . . . .-----------------. . . . . . . . . 84, 93
St. Louis and Iron Mountain R. R. Co.,
Cayce v ---------------------------. . . . . 356
St. Louis, Iron Mountain and Southern
Rwy. Co. v. Figart. . . . . . . . . . . . . • * * * * * - - - 443
St. Louis, Iron Mountain and Southern
Rwy. Co. v. Mills . . . . . . . . . . . . .----. . . . . 444
St. Louis, Iron Mountain and Southern
Rwy. Co. v. Venable ------. . . . . -- - - - - - -. 535
:St. Paul and Duluth R. R. Co. - - - - - - - - - - - 84, 93
St. Paul and Northern Pacific Rwy. Co . . 84
St. Paul, Minneapolis and Mauit ºba Rwy.
Co. ------------------------------- - - - - - - 84
St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba Rwy.
Co. v. Chadwick ------. --...--------. - - - - 128
. St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba Rwy.
Co., Nilson v -----------. . . . . . . . . . . . - 567
St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba Rwy.
Co. v. Qvamme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326
St. Paul and Sioux City R. It. Co . . . . . . . 84
Sage, Windsor v. --...--------------------- 440
Sampson, Stiteler v.--------...----------. 138
Sanborn, Frohne v . . . . . . --------------. . . 491
Sanford, Alfred E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Sanford v. Burbank . . . . . . . . .--------. . . . . 77
Saunders, Southern Pacific R. R. Co. v. ... 98
Schrotberger v. Arnold ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425
Sears v. Almy.---------------------------
Seitz v. Wallace. --...-------------------. 299
Selway v. Flynn.------------------------. 541
Sellmeyer, Frank H.--------------------. 792
Semer, Jacob----------------------------. 345
Seneca Indian Lands ......... ----------- 1.59
| Soustilie v. Lowery
Senholt v. Reynolds.......... ---...------.
Severson v. White.............--...------ -
• e e g º ºn e s - - - 4 ~ * * * * * * *
Shelton v. Reynolds.................----.
Shepard, James H.--.......... ---........
Shepherd, Jasper N......................
Sherlock, Alfred .........................
Skahen, United States v --...............
Simmons, Curtiss v.......................
Simmons, Union Pacific Rwy. Co. v.
Sioux City and St. Paul R. R. Co
Sioux City and St. Paul R. R. Co., and Chi-
cago, Milwaukee and St. Paul R. R. Co..
Slootskey, A. J. -------------------------.
Smedstad, Andrew. --...--...----.........
Smith, Chaslie v. -----------------...---- - -
Smith, Logan v.-------------------------.
Smith v. Knowles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Smotel v. Monroe. ---......... --...----...
* * * 4- tº dº
* * * * e s a e º ºs e - - - - * * * * * * *
Southern Minnesota Rwy. Co. . . . . . . . . . . .
Southern Pacific R. R. Co - .
Southern Pacific R. H. Co., Coble y
- Southern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Gardett. . . . .
Southern Pacific R. R. Co., Gordon ". . . . .
Southern Pacific R. It. Co. v. Saunders. . . .
Spellner, Tibergheim v. --...--------.....
Spencer, James --------------------------
State of Alabama .................. .....
State of California
State of California, Barclay et al. v
State of California, Melvin et al. v . . . . . . . .
State of California, McKenzie v. .........
State of California, Niven v ..............
State of California, O'Donald ". . . . . . . . . . .
State of California v. United States
- - - - - - - s = º ºs º- - - - - - - - - - sº a º
State of Louisiana v. Mºnogi. & Co.
et al. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .--------
State of Louisiana, New Orleans Canal
and Banking Co. v.
State of Minnesota
State of Ohio
Stebbins v. Felder
* * * * * * * * * * - - - - - - - * = * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
• * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * e º s
• * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Stiteler v. Sampson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Struthers, Cotton v.----...------...--...--..
Sutherland, Baker v. --...------...-...---.
Suydam, Killin v
Swang v. Totley ------ . . . . . . . . .--...------.
Swanson v. Anderson . --...--.............
Swartz v. Brown. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sweeney, Wade v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * e s =
VOLUME 7.
Sage, Henry W.--------------------------
St. Louis and Iron Mountain R. R. Co.,
St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba Rwy.
Co-------------------------- tº dº tº º Gº & e º º tºº & sº
- - - - - - 84, 93,
Page.
349,
679,
241
716
626
800
617
8
962
-55
120
35}
172
. . 47, 84, 162, 481
54
505
455
654
239
294
329
20
383.
15
126
816
812
756
33
473
347
37
348
795
39
138
552
193
204
151
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
Page. Page.
St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba Rwy. Shannon, Jeardoe v.------...-------------- 38
Co. v. Moling --------------------------- 184 || Shannon, Tannehill v. (on review) ........ 38
Salt Bluff Placer.------------------------ 549 | Shineberger, Joseph. ---...----...--...----- 231
Sandberg, Goran-------------------------. 384 || Short, Lovia A. ..... tº ~ * * * * * * * * * * * * * s s sº e º sº e 512
Sayer, David E.-------------------------- 297 | Shumate, Warden v ...................... 330
Saylor v. Wilson...... • * * * * * * * * * * s is e º ºr ºn tº gº 493 Silva, Miller v ...--...--------------------- 480
Schaber v. Hoyt -------------------------. 145 || Simpson, Willis E., et al.--------...--...--. 306
Schenck v. Trebilcock -------------...----- 30 Simrall, William F. . . . . . . . * * * * * * * ~ e º e º 'º - e. 581
Schenrock, Fritz-------------------------. 368 Sioux City and Pacific R. R. Co. v. Lewis
Schindler, Adam. ----------. ----------- • * * 253 et al.----------------------------------. 292
Senator Mill Site------------------------- 475 | Sloan, Uriah ----------------------------- 411
Sexton, James W. ------------------------ 312 Smith, Amos E.-----...------------------- 204
Shafer, Eaton v. --...---------------------- 220 Smith v. Anderson. ----------------...--.. 46
Shanessy, Mary A.-----------------------. 62 Smith v. Custer et al... --...----...--...--.. 269
Sheldon, Waters et al. v.-...------------.. 346 Smalley v. Hawblit's..................... 372
Short, Booth v ---------------------------- 69 | Sorenson v. Becker .... -----------....... 357
Shuff €t al., Clark v.---------------------- 252 | Southern Minnesota R. R. Co. et al....... 472
Silver Jennie Lode.---------------------. 6 Southern Pacific R. R. Co., Wier v ....... 282
Simmons, W.A., et al. ------------------. 283 || Spalding v. Colfer ---...--...----.......... 615
Simpson, George M----------------------. 38 || Sparks v. Galvin ------------------------- 534
Smart, Smith v. --------------------------- 63, 497 || Spence, State of Minnesota v ............ 64
Smith, Charles X------------------------- 231 Stalder, Pierpoint v. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 595
Smith, George H., et al. ------------------ 415 | Starr v. State of Minnesota .............. 644
Smith, Sarah D.------------------------. 295 | State of Arkansas ----------------------- 387
Smith v. Brown et al. --------------------. 423 State of California -----. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
Smith et al. v. Mayland ------------------- 381 | State of California, Central Pacific R. R.
Smith v. Ferguson...-- tº º ºs tº º ſº tº tº tº º ºr m s sº º e - - ºr 194 Co. v.----------------------------------- 79
Smith, Hurd v ---------------------------. 491 State of California et al., Wright et al. v.- 24
Smith v. Smart-------------------- • * * * - - - - 63,497 | State of California, United States v...... 4
Sparks, William J. ----------------------- 337 | State of Florida --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 65, 369, 380
Sprague, Brower v.----------------------- 126 State of Louisiana- - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------- 126
Stanton, Mary---------------------------- 227 | State of Louisiana v. McDonogh et al..... 134
Starkey, Orlando ---. --------------------. 385 | State of Michigan - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --...----- 308,560
State of California.--...----------------. 91, 270 | State of Minnesota ..... -- - - -........... 32
State of Colorado ------------------------ 490 | State of Minnesota, Lachance v... -...--. 179
State of Michigan. ----------------------- 243, 514 | State of Minnesota v. Spence ..... ---.... 64
State of Minnesota, Knudson v. .......... 424 State of Minnesota, Starr v. .............. 644
State of Minnesota, Sutton v. --........... 562 State of Oregon.--...--...--...-------------- 72
State of Oregon -------------------------- 572 | State of Wisconsin v. Wolf. . . . . . . . ...... 555
Stayton v. Carroll-----------------------. . 198 Stearns, George F. --...------------------. 573
Steinhardt, Falk-------------------------. 10 St. John v. Raff. --...---------------------- 552
Stitzel, Trainor v ------------------------. 387 Stone, William R. ---...------...------...-. 524
Stoddard v. Neigel. ----------------------- 340 Streib v. Zalondek ----------------------- 601
Stork and Heron Placer -----------------. 359 Strohl, Matilda. -------------------------. 62
Strentzel, Christian v. ------------------...- 68 Swett, Crumpler v ------------------...--. 584
Strout v. Yeager ----- tº * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 41 |
Summers, Kurtz v. -----------------------. 46 WOLUME 9.
Sutherland, Dixon v ---------------------. 312 Saben v. Amundson.--...-----------...-----. 578
Sutherland, Wachter et al. v .............. 165 St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba Rwy.
Sutton et al. v. Abrams. ------------------- 136 Co. v. Fogelberg-----------------------. 509
Sutton v. State of Minnesota ............. 562 | St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba Rwy.
Swink, Alonzo.--------------------------- 342 Co. v. Listoe.--------------------------- 534
St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba Rwy.
TVOLUME 8. Co., Mjoen v --------------------------. 246
Sah-wah-goo-do-gaw. --------------------- 55 Sanchez, Atlantic and Pacific R. R. Co. v. 71
St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba Rwy. Sapp v. Anderson.----------------------- 165
Co.------------------------------------- 255 Saunders v. Baldwin . -----------...------. 391
St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba Rwy. Sawin, Morris v ------------------------- 52
Co. et al. v. Pederson -------------------- 21 | Scott v. King. --...--...-------------------. 299
Sampson v. Lawrence -------------------. 511 | Setchel, John W ------------------------. 573
Sargent, John ---------------------------- 415 | Sevoy, State of California v. --...--...----. 139
Satrum, Peter O.------------------ • e º 'º - - - - 485 Shannon, Michael ...---------------- gº & G - G - 643
Schweitzer v. Ross et al.------------------ 70 Sheldon v. Warren.---------------------. 668
Schnabelin, John ------------------------. 474 Shepherd, Central Pacific R. R. Co. v ..... 213
Scotford v. Huck.... ... tº º ºs s s = e º 'º - e º gº º ºs - - - 60 | Shetterly, Drury v ..... ------------------ . 211
42
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
Shineberger, Joseph (on review). ........
Shriner, Gilmore v.---------...-----------
Shryock, Olney v.-----------------------.
Siegel, Veronica ---...-...----------------
Simpson, Edward C. -...----------------.
Skinner, James A.--...--------...--...-----
Sloan, Iowa Railroad Land Co. v . . .......
Slocomb. Doud et al. v. - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Smith, Alfred M ---...--...---------------.
Smith, Allen v.--------------------------.
Smith v. Brearly... --....... . . . . . . * - - - - - - -
Smith, Griffin v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Smith, Grigsby v.-----...----...----------.
Smith v. Howe -----------...----- * * * * *- - - - -
Smith v. Johnson. --...----------. . . . . . . . . .
South and North Alabama R. R. Co., Stin-
Southern Pacific R. H. Co., Childs v . . . . . .
Southern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Meyer. ......
Stalder, Pierpont v. (on review) ..........
Stanton v. Howell -----------------...--...
State of Alabama -----------------------.
State of California.------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
State of California v. Boddy . . . . . . . . . . . . . •
State of California v. Sevoy - - - - - - - - - - - . .
State of Iowa (Story County) . . . . . . . . . . . .
State of Louisiana ...... • * * * * * * * * * * * - - - - -
State of Oregon (on review)
State of Wisconsin, Nita v ...............
Stewart, John J.- -----------------------
Stewart, McHarry v
Stinson v. South and North Alabama R.
• s = * * * * * * * - - -
Story County (State of Iowa). . . . . . . . . . . .
Sullivan, Gallahan et al. v.--------------.
Swain v. Call.----------------------------
Swan, Thomas. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Swanson v. Anderson (on review). .......
Swanson v. Wisely’s Heir. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
VOLUME 10.
St. Louis, Iron Mountain and Southern
Rwy. Co. v. Arkansas . -----------------
St. Louis, II on Mountain and Southern
Rwy. Co., State of Arkansas v. . . . . . . . .
St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba Rwy.
Co. v. Thompson ------------------ . . . . .
St. Paul and Sioux City R. R. Co.......
St. Paul and Sioux City R. R. Co., Ran-
617
551
532
146
288
644
139
307
668
31
630
31
454
444
463
21
398
440
144
163
165
45
217
o99
398
22
121
446
393
394
498
315
32}
39
615
343
579
491
305
402
216
57
645
339
372
St. Paul and Sioux City R. R. Co., United
States v --------------------------------
Sapp v. Anderson (on review). ----------.
Sault St. Marie, Gamble v. ..............
Sewell v. Rockafeller---, -----------. . . . . .
Sigaſus, Solitaire Mining and Milling
Co. v.----------------------------------
Sioux Indian lands. ---------------------
Shepard et al., Dunn v. . . . . . . . . -- - - - - - - - -
Shire et al. v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minne- .
apolis and Omaha Rwy. Jo. -- . . . . . - - - - -
Shobar, Frank M ---------...-------------
Showell v. Central Pacific R. R. Co ......
Smith, Charles E..... - * * * * * * * s e º ºs e º º ºs º º - -
609
566
375
232
270
562
139
85
447
167
150
Smith, Carnes v ---------........ sº e º sº º sº tº º º
Smith, Frank H.....--...----...--.........
Smith, George H., et al. (on review)......
Smith, Lewis v --------------------------.
Smith, Wilson v. ------...................
Snyder, Ferguson v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Solitaire Mining and Milling Co. v. Siga.
South and North Alabama R. R. Co. v.
Pannell --------------------------------
Southern Pacific R. R. Co., Childs v. (on
review)
* = * * * * * * * * - - - - - - - - - - * is as ºs e º 'º - - - - -
Southern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Cline . . . . . . .
Southern Pacific R. R. Co., Lane v. - . . . . . .
Southern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Meyer.......
Southern Pacific R. R. Co., Titamore v . . .
tain and Southern Rwy. Co . . . . . . . . . . . .
State of Arkansas, St. Louis, Iron Moun.
tain and Southern Rw v. Co. v. - - - - - - - - -
State of California, Harvey et al. v . . . . . . .
State of Colorado -----. . . . . . . . ----...----.
State of Illinois ------------------...-----
State of Illinois (Cass County) . . . . . . . . . . .
State of Illinois, Champaign County. . . . .
State of Illinois (Douglas County) . . . . . .
| State of Mississippi.----.................
State of Ohio (on review) ................ -
State of Oregon --------------------------
State of Oregon, Boyd v. ----...---------..
State of Oregon, Moylan v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
State of Wisconsin, Dox v............ . . . .
Steffen, Lizzie. --------------------------.
Stephan, Kline v -----------------------.
Stewart, McHarry v. (on review). . . . . . . . .
Stiles v. Newman - - - - - - - - - - - • * * * * * * * * * * *
Stitzel, Trainor v. (on review) ........ --.
Stockham et al., Harrin gton v. -----------
Stone, Crane v. -----. --------------...--.
Stone, McWain v .-----------------------
Stovenour, Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v . .
Stowell v. Clyatt ---...--. . . . . . . -----------
Stukel, Delila ----------------------------
Summerfield, Alice-----------------------
Svenneby v. Broste ----------------------
Sweeney v. Wilson et al.-----------------
Sweetzer v. Moore. -----------------------
Swisher, Wise v . . . . . . ------------------ º
T.
VOLUME 1.
Taft, Murphy v. ------------------------ º
Taylor, George ------------------ * * tº 4 º' g º º
Taylor, Jacob S. -------------------------
Terry et al., Miller et al. v.--------------.
Texas and Pacific Rwy Co., McCains v..
Thomas v. Drumhiller. ------------------.
Thomas, Effie J ...... • * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Spalding v. Colfer (on review). . . . . . . . . . . .
Spencer et al., Gardner v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Spicer et al., v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co.
Spracklen, Clement ---------------------.
Stalz v. White Spirit et al................
State of Arkansas v. Forbes et al. . . . . . . .
State of Arkansas v. St. Louis, Iron Moun-
136
302
296
388
486
131
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
Page
Thomas, Fullen p------------------------ 446
Thomas v. Thomas ----------------------- 89
Thyson v. Bryant et al. . . ----------------- 117
Tilden et al. v. Intervenor Mining Co.... . 572
Tipton, John F.-------------------------- 17
Titus v. Bull et al ------------------------ 404
Tomay et al. v. Stewart ...----...----...--.. 570
Town of Bellevue----------------...------- 503
Town site of Ketchum. -----------------. 502
Town site of Rico. --...-...----- * * * * * * * * * e 556
Trepp v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co. . . . . . . 380
Truax v. Semper ------------------------. 141
Turner, Mondelbaum v. ------------------ 135
VOLUME 2.
Tabor Lode.----------------------------- 709
Tabor, Wight v -------------------------. 738,743
Talbert v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co...... 536
Talbert, Seacord v.----------------------. 184
Talbot and Crafts.----------------------- 33
Talbot, Wheelon v.----------------------. 273
Talkingtons's Heirs v. Hempfling..... --. 46
Taylor, Bennett v ---------------------- * * 42
Taylor's Heirs, Denny v. ----------------. 227
Taylor v. Southern Minnesota Rwy. Ex-
560
tension Co ----------------------------- 557
Taylor, Wheelan v ----------------------. 295
Tefoya, Felipe --------------------------- 419
Texas and Pacific R. R. Co., Daneri v . . . . . 548
Texas and Pacific R. R. Co., Freeman v . . 550
Thomas v. McClure and Yeates ... - - - - - -. 125
Thompson v. Jacobson ------------------. 62
Tibbets, Rosser -------------------------. 839
Tipton, Hughes 0 -----------------------. 334
Toups, Children of Paul.----------------. 431
Tower, Charlemagne. -------------------. 779, 180
Town of Albuquerque ------------------. 413, 419
Town of Chilili - -----------------------. 420
Town of Las Vegas---------------------. 423
Townsend's Heirs v. Spellman. ---...----. 77
Traugh v. Ernst. ------------------------- 212
Tremain, Houge v. ----------------------. 596
Troy's Heirs v. Southern Pacific R. R. Co. 523
Trusdle, R. H. . . . . . --... • - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - tº 275
Tucker, Heirs of James -----. ------...--. 439
Tufts, Whitmore v. ---------------------. 278
Tupper v. Schwarz. ---------------------. 623
Tyler v. Duncan ------------------ e = s. sº ºs º º 571
VOLUME 3.
Tajo, El---------------------------------- 137
Taylor, Peck v --------------------------- 372
Teets, Durkee v ---------- tº e º 'º an º ºr a s = s. s = e tº 512
Texas and Pacific R, R. Co. ---...--------. 450
Texas and Pacific Rwy. Co. ---...--...----. 472
Texas and Pacific Rwy. Co. v. Gray. -----. 253
Texas and Pacific Rwy. Co. v. Hancock... 164
Texas and Pacific Rwy. Co., Sohn v. ...-- tº 122
Thacker, John E.------------------------- 181
Thomas, Tipp v. ------------------------- 102
Thompson v. Sankey------------------ e sº º 365
Thornton, Hiram S. --------------------- 509
Thorpe et al. v. McWilliams. --...--------- 341, 344
Tighe, Edward A. ------------------------ 61
Tipp v. Thomas. ------ tº e s tº gº e º ºs e º º ºs & a dº is sº tº º 102
Tonningson, Overfelt v...................
Towey v. Chaffee............. --...--...--..
Trelut, Ernest ---------------------------
Turner v. Robinson ......... --...--. --.
Tyrl, John E.----------------------------
VOLUME 4.
Tauer v. Heirs of Walter A. Mann .......
Taylor, Grimshaw v......... --...----...--.
Teets, Durkee v-------------------------.
Texas Pacific R. R. Co ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Thom et al., Lilly v .----...--...------...-.
Thomas, David (guardian) ...............
Thomas et al., Legan v ---------...--......
Tilton v. Price ---------------------------
Timm, Clark v ---------------------------
Tobien, Brooks v. ------------------------
Toponce, Alexander -------...------------
Townsend, Brannin v. --------------...--.
Townsite of Kingman. ----...-- - - - - - - - - - - -
Townsite of Milton v. Gann........... --.
Tres Alamos.---- tº gº is gº tº º ſº e º ºs º º gº tº º sº tº $ tº ſº * * * *
VOLUME 5.
Talkington, heirs of Isaac W . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tarbox et al., Gallagher v ----------------
Taylor v. Huffman -----------------------
Teachman et al., Sharrar v. - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Tecolote, town of . --. --------------------
Tennessee and Coosa R. I. Co., Alabama
and Chattanooga R. R. Co. v.--------...-
Thomas et al., Oliver v.------------------
Thompson v. Lange ----------------------
Thorpe, Kelly b --------------------------
Turner v. Bumgardner -----. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Turpin, John C. --...-------- tº dº º sº º ºs e º sº e = * *
Townsend, Bailey v. --...--- tº * * * * * * * * * * * *
VOLUME 6.
Tannehill v. Shannon - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Tarr v. Burnham. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Taschi v. Lester -------------------------
Taylor, Grimshaw v. (on review). --...----
Taylor, Ida May -------------------------
Tennessee and Coosa R. R. Co----------.
Thomas, Austin v. -----------------------
Thompson, FontS v ... -- º e s m sº e º is º ºr is tº sº s is as sº
Thompson, George B --------------------
Thompson, William A. . . . . . . . . ------ * † dº º ºs
Thompson v. Manary --------------------
Throop, Porter v. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Tibergheim v. Spellner.------------------
Tofley, Svang v -------------------------
Tostenson, Halgrin ----------------------
Towey, Katie A'. -------------------------
Tarr, Jennie M --...-------------------- e
Taylor, J. F------------------------------
Taylor, Mary A --------------------------
Taylor, Northern Pacific R. R. Co v ..... sº
Tennessee Lode..... ---- tº e º 'º e º ſº e º º tº e º gº tº º tº
Terrell, Park v.---------------------------
Thompson, Cyrus H ---...---- tº º ºs e º ſº sº e º 'º, & s
Tiffany, Mary L. ---- tº gº tº ſº tº gº tº s º ºs º ºs º is is sº ºn a tº º
582
289
248
689
377
25, 183
176.
626
709.
27
254
107
84, 93.
330
332
263
576
610,
691
483
621
820.
147.
67
273
200.
148
392
440.
465.
480.
44 DIGEST
OF LAND DECISIONS.
Timmerman, George......... e g º e º gº º ºs s = & =
Toombs, Arthur P.----------------------
"rainor v. Stitzel........... tº º ºs º ºs e º g is is is & as
Trebilcock, Schenck v................ * * * gº
Trickey Placer ............. & s = s. s sº * * * * * * *
Tuthill, D'Acres v.--------...--...- tº gº as m e is
VOLUME 8.
Talbot, Thomas F. --------------...----.
Tannehill v. Shannon (on review). -- . . . .
Taylor et al. Armstrong v - - - - - - - - - - - -.
Taylor v. Yates et al... --...-----------....
Texas Pacific grant.--------...--...-----
Thomas, Pikev ------------------------.
Thompson, William - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thompson, Sidney F - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thrasher v. Mahoney. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tilton, Daniel G. ----------------------.
Tingley, Henry C. ----------------------
Trick, Epley v.-------------------------
VOLUME 9,
Tangerman et al. v. Aurora Hill Mining
Taylor, Hugh.--------------------------.
Taylor, James H. ----------------------..
Tavener, L.A.---------------- • ‘s sº s = * * * * * * *
Thomas et al., United States v . . . . . . . . . . .
Toombs, Arthur P. (on review)
Travelers' Insurance Co. --...-------...-.
Tucker v. Nelson -----------------------.
Tuttle v. Parkin -------------------------
* * * * * g º ºs º º
VOLUME 10,
Tannehill et al., Anderson v. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tate, Sarah J ... --------------------------
Taylor, George C
Taylor v. Yates et al. (on review). - - - - - ..
Thatcher v. Bernard...... * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Thompson, J. H. ------------------------.
Thompson, James G. --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * * *
Thompson, William
Thompson, Fouts v. (on review). -- . . . . . . .
Thompson v. Heirs of Partridge . . . . . . . . .
Thompson, St. Paul, Minneapolis and
Manitoba RWy. Co v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thorson et al., Norton v. -----------------
Titamore v. Southern Pacific Rwy. Co...
Trainer v. Stitzel (on review). -- - - - - - - - - - -
Trevilli ºn, Bay State Gold Mining Co v ..
Trick, Epley v. (on review)
Tripp, v Diehl.---------------------------
Toombs, Arthur P ... ---. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Townsite of Flagstaff, Gonzales v .......
Tucker v Nelson (on review)............
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * as sº sº is &
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
U.
Page.
548
215
387
30
52
468
557
104
626
368
205
110
538
305
230
426
576
312
316
520
495
507
261
463
305
194
413
591
192
348
VOLUME 2.
Ulrich, Jacob H.-------------------------
Underwood v. Eves ......................
TJnited States v. Southern Colorado Coal
and Town Co ---------------------...--.
Utah-Wyoming Improvement Co., IKerr v.
VOLUME 3.
Ulstein, Box v.-------------------------.
Union Pacific Rwy, Co. -- - - - - - - - - - - -----.
|Union Pacific Rwy. Co. v. United States..
United States v. Hawford ................
United States, Hastings and Dakota Rwy.
790
798
500
727
143
585
565
VOLUME 1.
Underhill, Thomas v .....................
Utah and Wyoming R. R. Co.............
Jtah and Wyoming R. R. Co. v. Oregon
Short Line RWy. Co.......---- * * * * * g º ºs ºs
516
397
396 .
Co.” ---------------------------------.
United States, State of California v . . . . . .
United States, St. Paul and Sioux City
United States, Union Pacific Rwy. Co. v .
Ute Reservation ... -----...-----...-...--.
VOLUME 4.
United States, State of California v
United States, St. Paul and Sioux City
s sº tº º º º
United States v. Raymond .... - - - - - - - - - -.
Urquhart, Northern Pacifie R. R. Co. v. --
VOLUME 5.
Union Pacific Rwy. Co., Milliman v ......
United States v. Connors et al............
|United States v. Copeland et al. ....... --.
United States v. Johnson et al.-----......
United States v. Richardson . . . . . . . . . . . . .
|United States v. Robinson et al. --- - - - - - -.
United States v. Woodbury et al. . . . . . . . . .
Tnited States, State of Kansas v. . . . . . . . .
Uriell, Brannon v. -----------------...----.
VOLUME 6.
Union Pacific Rwy. Co. . . . . . . .
Union Pacific Rwy. Co., Link v. -- - - - - - -.
Union Pacific Rwy. Co. et al., Roeschlaub v
Dnion Pacific Rwy. Co. v. Simnions -----.
|United States v. Barbour . . . . . . . -- - - - - - - - -
United States v. Bayne. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
United States v. Clark et al...... -------.
United States v. Fernandez ..... --...-----
United States, Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v.
United States v. Skahen....... ----...----.
United States, State of California v......
VOLUME 7.
Union Pacific Rwy. Co., Malone v........
|Upman v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co. -----
Uppendahl v. White --------------------.
VOLUME 8.
United States v. State of California ----- ſº
United States v. Atterbery et al ----------
United States, Hardee v.---------------- ſº
United States v. Rhea. ------------ gº º 'º º tº º dº
----------- 885, 581
322
750
172
379
292
120
684
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
45.
Page.
Union River Logging R. R. Co. . . . . . . . . . . 374
Urquhart, Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v ... 365
VOLUME 9.
Ulitalo v. Kline et al.--------------------. 377
Union Pacific Rwy. Co. v. Haines......... 595 |
United States v. Thomas et al............ 576
VOLUME 10.
Deland, Hausen v -----------------------. 273
Ullery, Laimb v -------------------------- 528
Union Pacific Rwy. Co, Boyer v .......... 568
TJnited States v. Atterbery (on review). - 36
TJnited States v. Central Pacific R. R. Co. 466
United States v. Jones .............. - - - - - 23
United States v. St. Paul and Sioux City
R. R. Co.---- - * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * is s 609
W.
VOLUME 1.
Wannater, Gearshum ---...--------------. 292
Van Ostrand v. Lange-------------------- 36
Vettel v. Norton. ------------------------. 459
Vigil and St. Vrain. --------------------.. 266
VOLUME 2.
Vaca, Antonio.--------------------------- 429
Vallé, Alexander------------------------- 421
Vancouver Catholic Mission. ---...---... 452
Van Gieson, Lorenzo .--------------...--.. 86
Van Noy & Co., W. T -----...------------. 811
Varner, Eldredge v. ---. -----------------. 435, 448
Vaughan v. Knudson. --...--------------.. 288
Vigil, Loveto. ----------------- . . . . . ------ 406
Vigil and St. Vrain Grant..... 374, 378,382,385,590
Voss, Bender v -------------...----------- 269
VOLUME 3.
Vasquez v. Richardson . --------...--...--.. 247
VOLUME 4.
Vaca, Antonio --------------------------. 13, 375
Van Doren, Hatch v. ---------------...--...- 355
Von Zee et al., Abbas v-----------------. 488
VOLUME 5.
Valentine, Thomas B., et al.............. 382
Vannest, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Mani-
toba Rwy. Co. v.------------------------ 205
Voorhees et al., Loop v ------------------- 227
VOLUME 6.
Vail, Clymena A --------------------...--. 833
Van Gordon v. Ems. -------------------- tº s 422
Van Ostrum v. Young --------------...... 25
Vargason v. McClellan. --------------..... 828
Vaughn, Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v . . . . . 11
Venable, St. Louis, Iron Mountain and
Southern Ry. Co. v.-------------------- 535
Veta Grande Lode ........... ------------ 718
Vicksburg and Meridian R. R. Co........ 84, 93
Vicksburg, Shreveport and Pacific R. R.
Co -------------------------------- ..... 84, 93
Vigil, Bartolo ---------...----. - ºn tº e º e º º is sº tº 454
Page.
408
459.
377
561
609,
620
114
11
190.
585
637
36.
582
26
387
417
549
555
53
VOLUME 7.
Vachon, Platt v ------------------- ge e = * * * *
Vandivoort, Samuel H.-------...--------.
Virginia Lode.-------------------- gº ºs e º sº tº º
VOLUME 8.
Victorine v. New Orleans and Pacific R.
VOLUME 9.
Van Brunt v. Hammond et al.............
Vandivert v. Johns ................. & º ºs as tº
Van Gilder, Gibson v. ........... ------...
Vibrans v. Langtree
Voght, John P. S -------------------------
Votaw, Campbell v .......................
• * * * * - - º tº º & ºn at tº e º 'º - * * gº º
VOLU ME 10.
Van Hollen, Peterson v. .... --...--...--..
Vaughn v. Brecheisen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Victorien v. New Orleans Pacific Rwy. Co.
(on review)
- sº e e s - e a s s = * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
W.
YOLUME 1.
Walker, Margaret-----------------------.
Wallace, J. S ------------------------. ----
Wallace v. Boyce ------------------------
Ward v. Southern Minnesota Rwy. Exten-
Warren Mill-site v. Copper Prince. ----..
Weaver, Thomas F
Weber v. Schappell.--...------------------
Weisbecker, Gould v.-------------------.
Weisbecker, Larson v. --------...--------
Westgate, Edward ---------------. ------.
Wetherbee, Thomas S. -------------------
Weum v. Mickelson. --------------------.
Wenzel v. St. Paul, Minneapolis and Man-
itoba Rwy. Co--------------------------
White, Albert. ---------------------------
White, William H. ----------------------.
Wisconsin Central R. R. Co
Willardson v. Dusterberg
Williams et al., Ward v.------------...---.
Wilson, Bowers v
Winston, Galloway v ...------------------.
Wolf v. Struble. --------------------------
Woodside, Cowan v
Wood v. Southwick
Wright, Jordan v
Wright. S. G., et al. (Clontarf claim).----.
* s is - e º sº e s - e º ºs e º 'º - e º sº tº a
VOLUME 2.
Walker v. Sewell... ----------...----. * * * * * *
Ward v. Gann..... tº sº me sº e º 'º º ºs º º * * * * * * * tº as us tº e
Ware v. Bishop
Warner, Solomon ------------------------
Watson, Babcock v. ----------------- tº e s tº &
Watson, Worthington v.----...-- e - e º ºs º cº -
Way, Erickson v.------------ * * * * * * * * * * * *
Weade, McLeoud v ---------------------.
76
114
409
438
38
626
333
451
55
373
455
417
431
142
449
127
119
474
569
613
630
616
341
19
301
233
145
46
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
Weaks v. Cobb................... e - a s s sº tº e
Weymouth, Horatio..... º e º e º ſº º sº * * * * G s ſº a tº
Wheelan v. Taylor .-----.................
Wheaton v. Talbot ......................
White and Mallett...... *
Whiteford, Edward ......................
Whitmore v. Tufts.......................
Whitney v. Maxwell .....................
Wight v. Tabor ---------.................
Wilkins, Benjamin C. ---...----..........
Williams, Joseph. ------------------------
Williams, Thorp . . . . . ....... ---...--.... ..
Wilson, Doyle v.--------------------.....
Wilson v. French. ----......-----.........
Winters v. Jordan. --...--------------.....
Wisconsin, State of . --...----...----------.
Wood, Henry ---------------------------.
Woody, O'Kane v ...............--------.
Woodward, Ozra M ------------------....
Woods, J. B.-----------------------------
Woolf v. Central Pacific R. R. Co.........
Worthington v. Watson..................
Wrigglesworth, Thomas .................
Wri.ht, McMurtrie v....................
Wright, Pomeroy v.------------..........
TVOLUME 3.
Waite, Sawyer and.------------...... e e º gº
Walker, Ergler v............ * * * * * * * * * * e s as
Wallace v. Schooley......................
Waters, Charles C -------................
Weimar et al. v. Ross. --...----............
Weldon, Samuel ---...-------------.......
Wells, Henry T ------------------------- tº
Wells, Higgins v ------------------------.
West, Brown v.------------------.........
Whitcher v. Southern Pacific Rwy. Co ...
White v. Doherty ..................... tº e e
White, Kilpatrick v.--...................
Whitehead, William W... ..............
Whitfield, Woodson and .................
Whitford v. Benton. --...................
Whittlesey, Charles F., et al..............
Wilde, Julius M. . . . . . . . . . ................
Wiley, Crail. . . . . . . . . . . . --------------...
Williams, Henry .................. e - * * * * *
Williams, Benschoter v. ..................
Williams, Matthiessen & Ward v. .......
Williams v. Price ..... --.................
Willingbeck, Christian P.................
Wilmarth and Kemp.........
Wilson, Gordon v ........................
Withee v. Martin.................. * * * * * * *
Witter, Daniel ------------------------...
Witter v. Rowe ---...--------.............
Wolford's heirs, Central Pacific R. R. Co. v.
Wood v. Kelly -------...--...------.......
Woodall, A. W. ................ --...---..
Woodson & Whitfield....................
Wyland, Anthony. --...-...--...--........
WOLUME 4,
Wadman, Central Pacific R. R. Co v ..... * *
Waldock, John ............... tº a tº º sº e º 'º ºn º ºs
Walker v. Snider..... sº º e º 'º - e s sº sº e us & e º e º ºs e s
273
382
278
98
738, 743
129
762
488
301
787
251
164
54
184
326
140
129, 441
444
196
21
413
459
551
507
219
364
343
469
3.25
429
133
419
282
486
383
15
592
539
38
449
264
4.18
39
º
tº
561
378
Wallace, John.------------------...-- * = e sº
Ward, Bell v -----------------------------
Watson, Thomas E............ ë º & © tº e º ºs º is s
Weimar et al. v. Ross ....................
Welch, Elijah et al.......................
Wenie et al. v. Frost................ tº ºi e º sº *
Wertman v. Blume............... -- tº w - as tº s
West v. Owen -------------------------..
White, Capprise v. --...----..............
Whitnall, Hastings and Dakota Rwy. Co.
19. - - - - - - - - - - - - - • * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Wilcox et al., Ferrier v...................
Williams et al., Pfaff v. ...... ------------
Winans v. Mills et al...... tº - tº sº a s = e º w - * * * *
Winqvist, Lars---------------------------
Wisconsin Central R. R. Co. v. Stinka . . . .
Witt, Hickson's Heirs v..................
Witzel v. Brush.-----------------------.
Woodley, James ---------...-------------.
Woodward v. Percival et al. ..............
Woolway v. Day...... s us sº m - - - * * * > * * * * * * * * *
VOLUME 5.
Wadsworth, Prince v -----...----.........
Walker, John M. et al.....--------...---- º
Walker v. Mack. ------------------......
Walker v. Snider . . . . . . . . * * * * * * * * * * * * * is e e.
Walsh, Joseph. --------------------------
Ward et al., Gray v. --------...-----------
Wass v. Milward ---................. tº º is &
Watts v. Forsyth................. & Cº - - - - tº º
Wazuzer v. Kropitzky. --...--...-- tº e º sº - º ºs e s
Wellman, David B-----------...----------.
West Las Animas Townsite, Boggs v. ....
Whitcomb v. Boos. ------------...--......
Whitney v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co....
Willamette Valley and Cascade Mountain
Wagon Road Co., Rinehart v. ...... - - - *
Williams, Matthiessen, and Ward v. (on
review) -- . . . ---------------------------
Winona and St. Peter R. R. Co. . . . . . . . . . .
Winter, Jefferson v. --...----------------.
Wisconsin R. R. Farm Mortgage Land Co
Wolfe, Schweitzer v. --...------...----. . . .
Wood, Levi -----------------------------.
Woodbury et al., United States v . . . . . ...
Woolley, Mary J. et al.--------...--------.
Wooten, John T. ------------------------.
Wade, Hall v. -------------------- s is tº e - e º ºs
Wade U. Meier --------------------------.
Wade v. Sweeney ---...------ * * * *s º 'º - - - - gº tº
Wait, Linderman v.-----------------------
Wallace, Seitz v.-------------------------
Walsh, Kate -----------------------------
Wakefield v. Cutter et al..... tº sº gº gº tº ºn tº ºn sº º tº ig
Ward, Matthiessen and ---...............
Ward v. Robinson.---------- * tº º ºs ºs s m = * * * * *
Warn v. Field et al --------------...-----.
Warner, Winona and St. Peter R. R. Co. v.
Warren, Sheldon v . . ... ----...------...-----
Watson, Thomas E. (on review). ........ tº
31
Watts v. Williams ......... - - - - - e g º º ºr tº - © º
Watts v. Forsyth............ tº º ºs º gº tº º ºs - º, º º se
Page.
422
554
198
234
164
299
504
183
60
319
410
349
624
296
18U
352
694
81
158
481
303
222
389
234
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
47
Page.
Way v. Matz - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 257
Welch, Joshua - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 575
Weldon v. McLean. ---------------------- 9
Wenie v. Frost --------------------------- 175,539
White v. McGurk et al.------------------. 268
White, Porter v -------------------------- 335
White, Severson v.----------------------- 716
Widger, Minerva A --------------------. 694
Widow of Emanuel Prue----------------- 436,812
Wilbur, Cook v.--...---- sº sº as sº as as ºr s = * * * * * * * * * 600
Wilder v. Bradford.---------------------. 434
Wiley v. Raymond. ----------------------- 246
Williams, Rebecca C. -------------------- 710
Williams, Malcomb v. -------------------. 766
Williams, Matthiessen and Ward v ...... 95
Williams, Watts v ......... ge a sm s is ºn tº a s = e º is as 95
Willis, L. W. -------------------------- gº tº ſº 772
Wilson, William W ........... --. tº e º gº tº º ºs & 395
Winfield, Coleman v.---------------------- 826
Windsor v. Sage. -- -------------- & © tº gº tº gº tº º 440
Winona and St. Peter R. R. Co ----------- 84
Winona and St. Peter R. R. Co. et al.... -- 544
Winona and St. Peter R. R. Co. v. Warner. 611
Wisconsin Central R. R. Co. --...------. 84, 93, 190
Wisconsin Farm Mortgage Co. ----...--- 84, 93
Wiswell, Edward ------------------------ 265
Woodstock Iron Co. --...----- tº gº tº ſº º ºs tº e º ºs e tº 738
Wright v. Brabander. -------------- tº e e s as º 7 60
Wright v. Maher. --------------...--- tº º ºs e º ºs 758
Wurlitzer, Rudolph ---------- tº º tº º ſº tº tº ºn tº tº E tº 315
VOLUME 7.
Wachter et al. v. Sutherland......... tº e º 'º º 165
Waldon, Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. .... 182
Walker, John M., et al -------------. ---- 565
Warner, James H.----------------- tº tº ſº tº ſº tº 531
Waters et al. v. Sheldon ... -- © tº º tº E tº e s is a tº º tº 346
Weber, Peter ------------------------- tº gº tº 476
Welch v. Duncan ------------------------ 186
... Welch v. Molino et al.-------------------. 210
White, Uppendahl v---------------------- 60
Whitehead, Andrew --------------------- 378
Wiley, Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v..... tº º 354
Wilson, Saylor v-------------------------- 493
Winans, A. D ---------------------------- 288
Wolf, Kate D ---------------------------- 539
Wood, Francis M. --------- tº tº e º ſº tº gº tº º e º ſº tº gº tº 345
Woods, John ----------------------------- 420
Wright v. Larson --------------------- & tº ſº 555
VOI,UME 8.
Waite, Fred. G--------------------------. 638
Wakefield, George M ------------------- 189
Ward, Gilbert M. ....... tº º tº º ſº ſº tº gº sº tº tº sº º e = * * 156
Warden v. Shumate.--------------------- 330
Warren, Emma J ------------. * : * ~ * * * * * * * º 113
Watts et al., Delaney v ------------------- 480
Weed, Thurlow -------------------------- 100
Weir v. Southern Pacific R. R. Co........ 282
Welo, Caroline--------------------------- 612
West, Bartl wº...... tº ſº tº tº ſº º * º e º us ºs º ºs º º sº e º sº sº º 289
West v. Owen.--------------------...----- 576
White v. McGurk et al. (on review) ...... 155
Wilds, Henry ....... & tº º & º º sº e º e º º sº º e º ºs º ºs º ºs 394
Willis v. Parker-------------------------. 623
Winslow, R0bert M. ...... e e º ºs e º º ºs º º sº º sº º sº º
| Wintanute, D. D. -------------------. tº gº tº gº
Wisconsin v. Wolf ...--------------------.
Wolters, Charles -------------------------
Wright et al. v. California et al....... -----
Wybrant, H. P., et al.--------------------
VOLUME 9.
Wagner, Jesse F. ------------------------
Wallace, Estey v.--...--------------------
Waller v. Davis ---...------------------- tº gº
Ward, Richards v ------------------------
Ward, Peterson v ----...-----------------
Ware et al. v. Judson.------------------.
Warren, Sheldon v ------...--------------
Waterhouse, William W
Watson v. Morgan et al ---...-------...--.
Weasa, Nanney v.-----------------------
Webb v. Loughrey et al.----------------.
Weber, John C. --------------------------
Weber, Peter (on review)
Weimer, Williamson v ..... ------------ dº º
Wenie, Frost et al. v. (on review) .........
Westbrook, Norton v ------------------ tº gº
Wheeler, Cyrus --------------------------
Williams, Andas v.----------------------.
Williams, W R -------------. ------------
Williams, Florida Rwy. and Navigation
Co. v.-----------------------------------
Williamson v. Weimer -------------------
Wilson, Horton v -----------------------.
Winona and St. Peter R. R. Co...........
Wisconsin, Nita v.-----------------------
Wisely’s Heir, Swanson v. --------------.
Wolfe et al. Foreman v ------------------
Wright v. Coble.------------ tº ſº gº tº gº tº gº tº tº gº tº gº º
VOLUME 10.
Waldroff v. Bottomly --------------------.
Walker, John M. (on review)
Warner v. Finnerty - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Warren, Rathbun v
Weaver v. Eads --------------------------
Webb v. Loughrey et al. (on review).....
Weber, Peter ----------------------------
West v. Owen (on review). --...---...----.
Wharton v. Hinds.---------------- tº º ºs º ºs ºn as
Whetstone, Alice C. --...--. tº e º sº tº º ſº tº º ſº tº tº Lº º
Whitcomb, Boos v.-----------------------
White Spirit et al., Staltz v.----...-...--...-
Wilber v. Goode ------------------------.
Willamette Valley Wagon Road Co. v.
Morton --------------------------------
Williamson, Angie L.--. --------------..
Wilson, Benjamin L----------------------
Wilson v. Smith.------------------------.
Wilson et al., Sweeney ty........... - tº tº gº tº gº º
Wing, Hiram
Winslow, Collins' Heirs v................
Wisconsin Central R. R. Co.-------------
Wisconsin, State of, Dox v.--------------.
Wise v Swisher -------------------------.
Wollscheid, Pearce U.---------------. tº gº º gº
Wood v. Goodwin
Woods, John..... ge tº ſº e º ºs º ºs º ºs e º 'º º ſº tº tº gº tº ſº tº e º ſº
Page.
191
636
555
131
24
18
131
133
354
433
111
279
302
392
199
152
263
584
144
527
456
30
524
91
157
602
569
63
39
240
78
230
48 DIGEST
OF LAND DECISIONS.
Page.
Woolsey, Henry D.-----...---------------- 119
Wyland, Collier v ------------------------ 96
Ye
WOLUME 1.
Yarwood, Coillin v.----------------------- 411
Young, Ransom-------------------------- 433
VOLUME 2.
Yeates, Thomas v ------------------------ 125
Young, Meilke v ------------------------- 245
Young, William C.--------------...------- 326
WOLUME 4.
Yancey, Mary---------------------------. 366
VOLUME 5.
Young v. Arnold ------------------------- 701
VOLUME 6.
Yentsch v. Ryan ------------------------. 368
Young, Van Ostrum v.------------------. 25
VOLUME 7.
Yeager, Strout v ------------------------- 41
VOLUME 8.
Yantis, Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v ...... 58
Yates et al., Taylor v.-------------------- 279
VOLUME 9.
Yeates, Thomas J.----------------------. 67
Young, Edward.------------------------. 32
Yule, Joseph. ---------------------------- 293
VOLUME 10.
Page.
Yager et al., Hay v----------...--...- .... 105
Yates v. Glafcke ------...---------------. 673
Yates et al., Taylor v. (on review) ........ 242
Young, Hartley v.----------------------- 181
Z.
VOLUME 1. -
Zweck, Chapman v.---------------------. 123
VOLUME 2.
Zimmerman, Frederick C ----------...-- 327
VOLUME 3.
Zinkand v. Brown-------...--------------. 380
VOLUME 4.
Zeake, Brown v. -------------------------. 529
VOLUME 6.
Zyssett, Christian------------------------ 355
VOLUME 7.
Zimmerman, Joseph --------------------- 4].8
VOLUME 8.
Zalondek, Streib v. ----------------------- 601
WOLUME 9.
Zerfing, Purmort v.----------------------- 180
VOLUME 10.
Zimmerman et al., Everitt v.------------. 437
TABLE OF OVIERRULED AND MODIFIED CASES.
[From 1 to 10 L. D., inclusive.]
Bailey, John W., et al. (3 L. D., 386) : modified, 5
L. D., 513.
*Baker v. Hurst (7 L. D., 457); overruled, 8 L. D.,
110.
Barlow, S. L. M. (5 L. D., 695); modified, 6 L. D.,
648.
IBartch v. Kennedy (3 L. D., 437); modified, 6 L.
D., 217.
Bivins v. Shelley (2 L. D., 282); modified, 4 L.
D., 583.
Blenkner v. Sloggy (2 L. D., 267); modified, 6 L. D.,
217.
Box v. Ulstein (3 L. D., 143); modified, 6 L. D.,
217.
Bundy v. Livingston (1 L. D., 152); overruled, 6
L. D., 284.
Burkholder v. Skagen (4 L. D., 166); overruled, 9
L. D., 153. 4.
Buttery v. Sprout (2 L. D., 293); overruled, 5 L.
D., 591.
Christofferson, Peter (3 L. D., 329); modified, 6 L.
D.,284, 624.
| Colorado, State of (7 L. D., 490); overruled, 9 L.
D., 408.
Cornell v. Chilton (1 L. D., 153); overruled, 6 J.
D., 483.
Devoe, Lizzie A. (5 L. D., 4); modified, 5 L. D.,
429.
Dudy mott v. Kansas Pacific R. R. Co. (5 C. L.O.,
69); overruled, 1 L. D., 345.
*Elliott v. Ryan (7 L. D., 322); overruled, 8 L. D.,
110.
Epley v. Trick (8 L. D., 110); overruled, 9 L. D.,
353.
Ewing v. Rickard (1 L. D., 146); overruled, 6 L.
D., 483.
Florida Rwy. and Navigation Co. v. Miller (3 L.
D., 324); modified (6 L. D., 716); overruled, 9 L.
D., 237. tº
Forgeot, Margaret (7 L. D., 280); overruled, 10 L.
D., 629.
Freeman v. Texas Pacific R. R. Co. (2 L. D., 550);
overruled, 7 L. D., 18.
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
49
Galliher, Maria (8 C. L. O., 57); overruled, 1 L. D.,
57.
Garrett, Joshua (2 C. L. L., 1005); overruled, 5 L.
D., 158.
Gates v. California and Oregon R. R. Co. (5 C. L. O.,
150); overruled, 1 L. D., 336.
Gohrman v. Ford (8 C. L. O., 6); overruled, 4 L. D.,
580.
Hickey, M. A. and Edward (3 L. D., 83); modified,
5 L. D., 256.
Holland, G. W. (6 L. D., 20); overruled, 6 L. D.,
639.
Hooper, Henry (6 L. D., 624); modified, 9 L. D., 86,
284.
Jones, James A. (3 L. D., 176); overruled, 8 L. D.,
448,
Eniskern v. Hastings and Dakota Rwy. Co. (6 C.
L. O., 50); overruled, 1 L. D., 362.
Lindberg, Anna C. (3 L. D.,95); modified, 4 L. D.,
299.
Louisiana, State of (8 L. D., 126); modified on re-
view, 9 L. D., 157.
Maughan, George W. (1 L. D., 25); overruled, 7 L.
D., 94.
Morgan v. Craig (10 C. L. O. 234); overruled, 5 L.
D., 303. .
Nyman v. St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba
Rwy. Co. (5 L. D.,396); overruled, 6 L. D., 750.
Papina v. Alderson (1 B. L. P., 91); modified, 5 L.
D., 256.
Patterson, Charles E. (3 L. D., 260); modified, 6 L.
D., 254,624.
Phelps, W. L. (8 C. L. O., 139); overruled, 2 L. D.,
854, -
Rancho Alisal (1 L. D., 173); overruled, 5 L. D.,
320.
* The cases marked with a star are now authority. See Hessong v. Burgan, 9 L. D., 353.
ACTS OF CONGRESS
VOLUME 1. -
- Page
August 10, 1790 (1 Stat., 182) ------------- 12
June 9, 1794 (1 Stat., 394). ---------------- 12
May 23, 1804 (2 Stat., 274) ..... tº º sº m º º is as me s tº 6, 12
March 2, 1805 (2 Stat., 324)----------...--. 277
February 5, 1825 (4 Stat., 81).------------ 276
July 7, 1838 (5 Stat., 262). ... ------------.. 14
September 4, 1841 (5 Stat., 455), sec. 10.... 443,490
March 3, 1843 (5 Stat., 620), Sec. 4 ........ 443
February 2, 1848 (9 Stat., 929), art. 8...... 489
February 20, 1850 (9 Stat., 421) ........... 14
September 9, 1850 (9 Stat., 457) ........... 633
September 27, 1850 (9 Stat., 496... .291, 292, 293, 312
March 3, 1851 (9 Stat., 631). ----...--------. 181,231
February 14, 1853 (10 Stat., 158), sec. 6.... 306
Sec. 8.... 296
10464–4
CITED AND CONSTRUTED.
* Reed v. Buffington (7 L. D., 154); overruled, 8 L.
I)., 110.
Rico Townsite (1 L. D., 556); modified, 5 L. D.,
256.
Rogers v. Atlantic and Pacific R. R. Co. (6 L.D.,
565); overruled, 8 L. D., 165.
* Rogers v. Lukens (6 L. D., 111); overruled, 8 L.
D., 110.
Sayles, Henry P. (2 L. D., 88); modified, 6 L. D.,
797.
Serrano v. Southern Pacific R. R. Co. (6 C. L. O.,
93); overruled, 1 L. D., 380.
Shineberger, Joseph (8 L. D., 231); overruled, 9 L.
D., 202.
Sipchen v. Ross (1 L. D., 634); modified, 4 L. D.,
152.
Spencer, James (6 L. D., 217); modified, 6 L. D.,
772, and 8 L. D., 467.
State of California v. Pierce (3 C. L. O., 118); mod-
ified, 2 L. D., 854.
Sweeten v. Stevenson (3 L. D., 249); overruled, 3
L. D., 248.
Taylor v. Yates et al. (8 L. D., 279) ; reversed on
review, 10 L. D., 242.
Traugh v. Ernst (2 L. D., 212); overruled, 3 L. D.,
248.
Tripp v. Stewart (7 C. L. O., 39); modified, 6 L. D.,
795. o
Tupper v. Schwarz (2 L. D., 623); overruled, 6 L.
D., 623.
Turner v. Lang (1 C. L. O., 51); modified, 5 L. D.,
256.
Watson, Thomas E. (4 L. D., 169); modified, 6 L.
D., 71. -
Weber, Peter (7 L. D., 476); overruled on review,
9 L. D., 150. .
Wilkins, Benjamin C. (2 L. D., 129); modified, 6 L.
D., 797. w -
Willingbeck, Christian P. (3 L. D., 383); modified
5 L. D., 408.
Page.
March 3, 1853 (10 Stat., 244), sec. 6........ 631
March 27, 1854 (10 Stat., 269)............. 356, 384
July 17, 1854 (10 Stat., 305)............... 306
July 22, 1854 (10 Stat., 308).----........... 168,279
Sec. 8 ---------- 623
August 3, 1854 (10 Stat., 346)............. 496
December 9, 1854 (10 Stat., 598)...... gº º sº as & 14
March 2, 1855 (10 Stat., 634)............... 224, 504
March 3, 1855 (10 Stat., 701) ............. . 3, 6, 15
June 3, 1856 (11 Stat., 18) ----------------- 509
June 3, 1856 (11 Stat., 21).---------------. gº 395
March 3, 1857 (11 Stat., 200)............... 102
March 3, 1857 (11 Stat., 251) .............. 504, 509
February 26, 1859 (11 Stat., 385) .......... 633
March 8, 1859 (12 Stat., 975), treaty of July
16, 1855. ---------------- tº º tº º ºs tº dº tº e º ºs e º 'º fº 368
50
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
|
|
{
Page.
March 12, 1860 (12 Stat., 3) ................ 515
April 11, 1860 (12 Stat., 836) .............. 500
June 14, 1860 (12 Stat., 33).---..... 173,212, 232, 246
June 22, 1860 (12 Stat., 85) ................ 272
June 2, 1862 (12 Stat., 413) ................ 631
July 1, 1862 (12 Stat., 489), Sec. 3. . . . . . . . . . . 336, 346
February 24, 1863 (12 Stat., 664) .......... 168
March 21, 1864 (13 Stat., 35). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362
July 1, 1864 (13 Stat., 332). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173, 185,
212, 213, 234, 246, 266
July 1, 1864 (13 Stat., 343) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 502
July 2, 1864 13 Stat., 365), Sec. 6 .......... 382
July 2, 1864 (13 Stat., 356) ................. 346
July 4, 1866 (14 Stat., 87). ---...---........ 362
July 23, 1866 (14 Stat., 218), sec. 7......... 417
Sec. 8. -------. 392
July 25, 1866 (14 Stat., 241), Sec. 8......... 330
February 25, 1867 (14 Stat., 409)........... 390
March 2, 1867 (14 Stat., 541)............... ° 499
June 1, 1867 (14 Stat., 687) ................ 521
February 25, 1869 (15 Stat., 275). . . . . . . . . . . 269
June 28, 1870 (16 Stat., 382), joint res...... 627
July 14, 1870 (16 Stat., 279) . . . . . . . . . . . 356, 379, 631
February 18, 1871 (16 Stat., 416) . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 7, 15
March 3, 1871 (16 Stat., 601), joint res. . . . . 356, 380
April 20, 1871 (17 Stat., 10)................ 73
May 9, 1872 (17 Stat., 88). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380
May 10, 1872 (17 Stat., 91)................. 581
June 5, 1872 (17 Stat., 226) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368
February 11, 1874 (18 Stat., 15)............ 369
June 22, 1874 (18 Stat., 194). ------........ 327, 359
March 3, 1875 (18 Stat., 516) ...... . . . . . . . . 91, 610
March 3, 1875 (18 Stat., 482) .............. 396, 397
April 21, 1876 (19 Stat., 35).----........ -- 358
Sec. 1.-------.. 353, 355
Sec. 2 ---------. 387
Sec. 3. . . . . ----. 334
May 5, 1876 (19 Stat., 52). -----............ 590
May 9, 1876 (19 Stat., 52).................. 169
July 5, 1876 (19 Stat., 75).................. 529
July 31, 1876 (19 Stat., 121) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310
March 1, 1877 (19 Stat., 267 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403
March 3, 1877 (19 Stat., 377) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
March 3, 1877 (19 Stat., 392). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 498
May 27, 1878 (20 Stat., 63). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356, 485
June 3, 1878 (20 Stat., 88) ........... . . . . . . 597, 600
June 3, 1878 (20 Stat., 89) ...... . . . . . . . . . . . 600, 602
June 14, 1878 (20 Stat., 114) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147, 149
Sec. 3.----- 153, 160, 626
June 19, 1878 (20 Stat., 172) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
March 3, 1879 (20 Stat., 472). . . . . . . . ...... 25, 29, 38.
51, 62, 92,93, 101, 109,485, 525
March 3, 1879 (20 Stat., 352). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308, 534
January 28, 1879 (20 Stat., 274) . . . . . . . . . . . . 534
May 14, 1880 (21 Stat., 140), sec. 1 . . . . . . . . 122, 156
Sec. 2 . . . . . . . . 51, 74,79,
84, 93, 103, 160, 626
Sec. 3. . . . . . . . . . 415, 449
May 27, 1880 (21 Stat., 105)................ 3, 7, 15
Sec. 2.- ... --... 16
Sec. 3. . . . . . . . . . 9, 16
May 28, 1880 (21 Stat., 143)... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 520
June 4, 1880 (21 Stat., 543) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
June 15, 1880 (21 Stat., 237) sec. 2 . . . . . . . . 26, 35, 51,
53, 55, 57, 69, 72,73, 74, 75, 96
j
Page.
June 16, 1880 (21 Stat., 287) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 533
Sec. 2.- ... --. 525, 527,
528, 530, 532
VOLUME 2.
September 2, 1789 (1 Stat., 65), sec. 8 ...... J09
May 18, 1796 (1 Stat , 464), sec. 2 .......... 849
April 25, 1812 (2 Stat., 716), sec. 10 . . . . . . . . 106
March 3, 1819 (3 Stat., 520)................ 604,608
April 24, 1820 (3 Stat., 966), sec. 1 ......... 131
May 11, 1820 (3 Stat., 573), sec. 1 .......... 647
February 28, 1823 (3 Stat., 727)............ 397, 429
July 4, 1836 (5 Stat., 107), sec. 14 .......... 106
September 4, 1841 (5 Stat., 453), sec. 10 .... 855
Sec. 14. --. 526
March 3, 1843 (5 Stat., 619), sec. 4 ......... 855
August 14, 1848 (9 Stat., 323), sec. 1 ...... . 452
March 2, 1849 (9 Stat., 352) .......... . . . . . 646, 652
September 27, 1850 (9 Stat., 496) ...... . . . . 435, 439,
440, 445, 446, 449
September 28, 1850 (9 Stat., 519) ...... . . . .472, 545,
645, 652, 668
March 3, 1851 (9 Stat., 631), sec. 13 . . . . . . . . 364
August 31, 1852 (10 Stat., 143) ....... . . . . 9
February 14, 1853 (10 Stat... 158) .......... 441, 450
March 2, 1853 (10 Stat., 172) sec. 20. . . . . . . . 626
March 3, 1853 (10 Stat., 244) ............ . . 681
July 17, 1854 (10 Stat., 305) ............ 37, 443, 450
July 22, 1854 (10 Stat., 308) ............ 414, 421, 522
August 3, 1854 (10 Stat., 346)........... --. 457, 496
March 2, 1855 (10 Stat., 634), sec. 2 . . . . . . . . 670
May 15, 1856 (11 Stat., 9).-----------...--. 483
May 17, 1856 (11 Stat., 15) -----........... 532,561
June 3, 1856 (11 Stat., 17) - - - - - - -...--... 475, 484, 501
August 18, 1856 (11 Stat., 87) ............. 603, 608
August 18, 1856 (11 Stat., 473) .......... -- 431
March 3, 1857 (11 Stat., 195) . . . . . . . 481,495, 502, 511
March 3, 1857 (11 Stat., 251) .......... . . . . 653
March 3, 1857 (11 Stat., 517) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 390
June 2, 1858 (11 Stat., 294). . . . . . . . . 394, 403, 429, 431
June 12, 1858 (11 Stat., 332), Sec. 6... . . . . . . 603, 608
I}ecember 22, 1858 (11 Stat., 374). --....... 420
March 12, 1860 (12 Stat., 3) -----...--...... 641, 642
June 21, 1860 (12 Stat., 71) ...------------. 422
June 22, 1860 (12 Stat., 84) ----............
June 22, 1860 (12 Stat., 85) ...........----. 430, 431
January 29, 1861 (12 Stat., 126), sec. 3..... 695
May 20, 1862 (12 Stat., 392), sec. 5.......... 60
July 1, 1862 (12 Stat., 489) -...----. 477, 488, 525, 846
April 8, 1864 (13 Stat , 39) -----...--------. 460
May 5, 1864 (13 Stat., 64). -----...----------. 642
June 25, 1864 (13 Stat., 184) ....----------- 443
July 1, 1864 (13 Stat., 332) ............. 347, 367, 372
July 1, 1864 (13 Stat., 335) ---------...--... 668
July 2, 1864 (13 Stat., 356). ----------...--. 846
July 2, 1864 (13 Stat., 365). --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 513, 517,
529, 536, 554, 569, 676, 860
March 3, 1865 (13 Stat., 504) ............... 477
March 3, 1865 (13 Stat., 526) ........... 481, 502, 511
March 8, 1866 (14 Stat., 4) . --------------. 347
May 7, 1866, J. R. (14 Stat., 355), sec. 2..... 860
July 4, 1866 (14 Stat., 87) -----....... ... . . 492, 502
July 13, 1866 (14 Stat., 97).--------------- 494
July 23, 1866 (14 Stat., 218), Sec. 1.--------. 643
Sec. 7.-----. ... 549, 550
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
Page.
July 25, 1866 (14 Stat., 239) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 490
July 26, 1866 (14 Stat., 251), sec. 3 -...------. 773
Sec. 11--------- 713,850
July 27, 1866 (14 Stat., 292) ... ------------ 645
June 25, 1868 (15 Stat., 80). --------------. 490
July 1, 1868, J. R. (15 Stat., 255) . --------. 860
March 3, 1869 (15 Stat., 342) - - - - - - - - - - - - -. 425
May 6, 1870 (16 Stat., 121) ---------------. 844,845
May 31, 1870, J. R. (16 Stat., 378) .. 508, 513,517,859
June 28, 1870, J. R. (16 Stat., 382). . . . ----. 513, 559
July 9, 1870 (16 Stat., 217), sec. 12.... . . . . 765
March 3, 1871 (16 Stat., 573). --...--...--. 547, 548, 550
March 3, 1871 (16 Stat., 588) ---...--------. 48i
April 5, 1872 (17 Stat., 649) - - - - - ---------. 461, 594
May 8, 1872 (17 Stat., 85).---------...------ 182
May 10, 1872 (17 Stat., 91) ------------- 741,765, 773
May 29, 1872 (17 Stat., 190), sec. 8 ........ 821
June 5, 1872 (17 Stat., 226).-----------.... 675
June 8, 1872 (17 Stat., 333).--------...---.. 124, 236
June 10, 1872 (17 Stat., 381)---...--------. 190
March 3, 1873 (17 Stat., 605) ............ -- 236
March 3, 1873 (17 Stat., 607) .............. 761
June 22, 1874 (18 Stat., 194) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 485, 527,
530, 533, 535, 540, 542, 561, 681
June 23, 1874 (18 Stat., 272). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
February 5, 1875 (18 Stat., 305) . . . . . . . . 340, 341, 343
March 3, 1875 (18 Stat., 420), secs. 15, 16. . . 192
March 3, 1875 (18 Stat., 482). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 543,814
March 3, 1875 (18 Stat., 497) .......... . . . . 21
March 3, 1875 (18 Stat., 516) .............. 190
April 13, 1876 (19 Stat., 32) .......... tº s sº sº is 830
April 21, 1876 (19 Stat., 35), sec. 2 . . . . . . . . . 560
- Sec. 3 - - - - - - - - - 501
May 23, 1876 (19 Stat., 55)...... • e º 'º se g s = * * * 191
July 5, 1876 (19 Stat., 74}............... 181, 184, 188
July 31, 1876 (19 Stat., 121). ----...--...--. 371, 463
January 12, 1877 (19 Stat., 221). -----...--. 851
March 3, 1877 (19 Stat., 377), sec. 1 ....... 22, 691
Sec. 2.-------- 19
March 3, 1877 (19 Stat., 403) . . . .90, 200,224,660, 672
May 27, 1878 (20 Stat., 63). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 504
June 3, 1878 (20 Stat., 88)...... . . . . 814, 823, 824, 827
June 3, 1878 (20 Stat., 89).. 172, 332, 334, 631, 633, 663
June 3, 1878 (20 Stat., 91) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 580, 596
June 14, 1878 (20 Stat., 113), Sec. 1 . . . . . 256, 312,322
Sec. 2 . . . . . 90, 271, 306,
309, 328, 547, 634
sec. 3 249, 268,277,282,
284, 289, 292, 293, 318
Sec. 5 - - - - - - - - - 291, 663
Sec. 7 --------. 280, 329
January 28, 1879 (20 Stat., 274) ----...--... 599
March 3, 1879 (20 Stat., 352) ... --......... 465
March 3, 1879 (20 Stat., 472). .30, 91, 110, 177,205,580
July 1, 1879 (21 Stat., 46). --...----------... 91
March 16, 1880 (21 Stat., 68)............... 182, 186
May 14, 1880 (21 Stat., 140), sec. 1 ........ 266,280,
285, 305, 318, 323,619
Sec. 2. -------. 40
52, 57, 60, 119, 166,
277, 285,291, 304, 313,
321, 581, 600, 616, 660
Sec. 3 - - 26,
34, 35, 104, 113, 114
118, 147, 172, 175, 575
Page.
May 28, 1880 (21 Stat., 143). - .............. 573
June 4, 1880 (21 Stat., 543) ................ 29, 111
June 8, 1880 (21 Stat., 166) ................ 101, 103
June 9, 1880 (21 Stat., 169) ............ . . . . 201, 224
June 15, 1880 (21 Stat., 237), sec. 1. ... .829, 831, 833
sec. 2. .46, 52, 53, 75, 78,
82, 93, 98, 99, 114, 124,
125, 128, 166, 176, 523
Sec. 3 677
June 16, 1880 (21 Stat., 287) 661, 663,
675,680, 682, 684, 686, 691,.693,694
January 18, 1881 (21, Stat., 315) ........... 192
March 3, 1881 (21 Stat., 511)....... - - - - - - a e 145
July 15, 1882 (22 Stat., 168) ............... 206
July 28, 1882 (22 Stat., 178)................ 730
March 3, 1883 (22 Stat., 484) ........... 661, 666,671
March 3, 1883 (22 Stat., 487)............ . . . 35, 36
March 3, 1883 (22 Stat., 526) ............ . . 677
WOLUIME 3.
March 2, 1805 (2 Stat., 324)................ 240
April 21, 1806 (2 Stat., 391). --...----...----- 240
March 3, 1807 (2 Stat , 440). --............. 240
December 22, 1807 (2 Stat., 451). ---....... 578
April 29, 1816 (3 Stat., 328) ............... 177
May 1, 1820 (3 Stat., 567) -----...----....... 578
May 11, 1820 (3 Stat., 573).-------...------ 240
May 20, 1826 (4 Stat., 179). ----...----...-...- 231,328
April 28, 1828 (4 Stat., 264).----------..... 578
May 24, 1828 (6 Stat., 382). ---------------- 44
May 29, 1830 (4 Stat., 420). ----...-...------ 25
January 23, 1832 (4 Stat., 496)..... * * * * * * * * 25
March 3, 1835 (4 Stat., 779)................ 239
July 4, 1836 (6 Stat., 682). - ........... tº º ºs e = 239
June 22, 1838 (5 Stat., 251). --............. 432
September 4, 1841 (5 Stat., 453) ......... 96, 231, 265
Sec. 12..... 25
March 3, 1843 (5 Stat., 611). -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 427
March 2, 1849 (9 Stat., 352)................ 396
March 3, 1849 (9 Stat., 395)............... - 427
September 9, 1850 (9 Stat., 457), sec. 15.... 383
September 20, 1850 (9 Stat., 466) ... - . . . . . . 244
September 27, 1850 (9 Stat., 496), sec. 4.- ... 16, 470
sec. 5.... 60, 74
Sec. 7.... 60
Sec. 8.... 470
September 28, 1850 (9 Stat., 519)........... 334, 396,
467, 476, 522, 57.1
March 3, 1851 (9 Stat., 631) ............... 206
March 22, 1852 (10 Stat., 3).----........... 101
August 31, 1852 (10 Stat., 91).............. 205
February 14, 1853 (10 Stat., 158), sec. 5 .... 74
Sec. 6 - - - - 16
March 3, 1853 (10 Stat., 244) ............ 89,265,477
Sec. 6.----. 206, 230, 328
Sec. 7...... .230, 307, 328
July 17, 1854 (10 Stat., 314) - - - - - - ....... - - - 558
July 22, 1854 (10 Stat., 308), sec. 8 ......... 137
September 30, 1854 (10 Stat., 1109) ........ 591
Match 2, 1855 (10 Stat., 634). ........... 396, 572, 583
May 17, 1856 (11 Stat., 15).----...-........ 245
June 3, 1856 (11 Stat., 17)................. 242, 305
August 18, 1856 (11 Stat., 87). ---.......... 556
August 18, 1856 (11 Stat., 473).---- º ºr tº º 'º me º ºs 240
March 3, 1857 (11 stat., 195)............... 527
52
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
|Page.
March 3, 1857 (11 Stat, 251)...... -----. 396, 571, 583
June 2, 1858 (11 Stat., 294), sec. 2.... ------ 72
June 2, 1858 (11 Stat., 294), Sec. 3.- - - - - - - -. 240
December 22, 1858 (11 Stat., 374) ...... . . . . 387
February 26, 1859 (11 Stat., 385).----- . . . . . 230,383
March 12, 1860 (12 Stat., 3). -...--...--.. 335, 467,476
June 22, 1860 (12 Stat., 85). -------...- ... --. 73
May 20, 1862 (12 Stat., 392).... --------...-. 510
July 1, 1862 (12 Stat., 489).-----------...--.. 538
Sec. 2.----------- 587
July 5, 1862 (12 Stat., 620), joint resolution 129
February 21, 1863 (12 Stat., 658)........... 580
March 3, 1863 (12 Stat., 819).----. . . . . . . . . . 288, 598
March 21, 1864 (13 Stat., 35) -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 448, 481
April 8, 1864 (13 Stat., 39) ----------------. 329
July 1, 1864 (13 Stat., 332, Sec. 1. --...------. 424
Sec. 2.----------- 88
July 2, 1864 (13 Stat., 365). ---------------- 491, 538
July 2, 1864 (13 Stat., 374) . . . . . ----------- 556
March 3, 1865 (13 Stat., 526) ..... -- - - - - - - - 527
July 3, 1866 (14 Stat., 79). ----------------. 538
July 4, 1866 (14 Stat., 87) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . 166,485, 527
July 23, 1866 (14 Stat., 218), Sec. 1. ---...--. 401
Sec. 3.--------. 401
Sec. 4- - - - - - - - - - 492, 522
sec. 6. . . .89, 307, 328, 424
Sec. 7 --------. 401, 423
July 24, 1866 (14 Stat., 221) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 123
July 25, 1866 (14 Stat., 239). --------------. 265
July 27, 1866 (14 Stat., 292). --...--...--...--. 130,477
April 10, 1869 (16 Stat., 45) --------------. 242
March 3, 1871 (16 Stat., 573).----------. 165, 253, 285
April 4, 1872 (17 Stat., 49). ---- tº is as as s an º ºr e º ºr at 510
May 10, 1872 (17 Stat., 91). -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12
June 8, 1872 (17 Stat., 340) ................ 196
June 8, 1872 (17 Stat., 333) . . . . ............ 481, 510
June 10, 1872 (17 Stat., 378), sec. 1. . . . . . . . . 73
March 3, 1873 (17 Stat., 605). ... - - - - - - - - - - - - 510
June 6, 1874 (18 Stat., 62) ... --- - - - - - - - - - - - 179
June 22, 1874 (18 Stat., 194) -----...--.. 325, 460,485
April 21, 1876 (19 Stat., 35), sec. 2. . . . . . . . . 50
July 4, 1876 (19 Stat., 73). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
March 3, 1877 (19 Stat., 377)............. 10, 214,464
March 3, 1877 (19 Stat., 392), sec. 1. --...- ... 78
March 3, 1877 (19 Stat., 403). - - - - - ........ - 64, 126
March 3, 1877 (19 Stat., 404)............... 285
May 27, 1878 (20 Stat., 63) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. 286
June 3, 1878 (20 Stat., 89). ---------...----- 435
Sec. 3.------------ 210
June 14, 1878 (20 Stat., 113).-----......... 64, 607
Sec. 2 - - - - - - - - - 182,260
Sec. 3.-------- 513
January 28, 1879 (20 Stat., 274), sec. 4.----. 44
March 3, 1879 (20 Stat., 472)...... . . . . . . . . 52, 102,
227,461, 517,520
January 14, 1880 (21 Stat., 299)............ 464
May 14, 1880 (21 Stat., 140). ---------...... 70.
May 14, 1880 (21 Stat., 140), sec. 1.----..... 568
Sec. 2 ........ 6, 186,
279, 302, 410,560
Sec. 3... 103,104, 130, 176
June 9, 1880 (21 Stat., 169. . . . . .----. 97, 126, 154, 298
June 15, 1880 (21 Stat., 199) - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . 297
June 15, 1880 (21 Stat., 237) sec. 2.......... 40, 190,
374, 466,490
f
ſº Page.
June 15, 1880 (21 Stat., 237), sec. 3......... 339
June 16, 1880 (21 Stat., 287) ............... 519
June 16, 1880 (21 Stat., 288)...........----- 465
January 18, 1881 (21 Stat., 315), sec. 3.----- 580
March 3, 1881 (21 Stat., 511 ............... 462
April 11, 1882 (22 Stat., 42).---...--...----- 158
July 28, 1882 (22 Stat., 178)..... ----------- 357
March 3, 1883 (22 Stat., 484). ---...--...--.. 175
Sec. 1 --------- 125
March 3, 1883 (22 Stat., 487). ---...--...... 169, 176
March 3, 1883 (22 Stat., 526). ---........... 339
March 3, 1883 (22 Stat., 563). . . . . . ......... 333
July 4, 1884 (23 Stat., 96).-------.... ------ 91
July 4, 1884 (23 Stat., 98) ------............ 113, 120
July 5, 1884 (23 Stat., 103).----. ms is tº at tº tº gº 297, 557, 577
VOLUME 4.
March 3, 1807 (2 Stat., 440), sec. 4.......... 129
February 28, 1823 (3 Stat., 727)............ 13
March 3, 1831 (4 Stat., 492) ............... 130
September 4, 1841 (5 Stat., 543), sec. 10..... 189
March 3, 1843 (5 Stat., 619), sec. 4.......... 189
August 3, 1846 (9 Stat., 51........... ------ 156
March 9, 1850 (9 Stat., 452). -----...------. 418
September 20, 1850 (9 Stat., 466) .... . . . . . . 3
September 28, 1850 (9 Stat., 519)...... 3, 371,415,497
March 3, 1851 (9 Stat., 351), se c. 9 . . . . . . . . . 359
March 2, 1853 (10 Stat., 179)............... 391
March 3, 1853 (10 Stat., 244). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
July 17, 1854 (10 Stat., 305), sec. 5 ......... 103
July 22, 1854 (10 Stat., 308) . . . . . . . . . . . . 312, 431, 501
Sec. 8---------- 482
March 2, 1855 (10 Stat., 634)............... 5
June 9, 1855 (12 Stat., 945), treaty......... 172
May 17, 1856 (11 Stat., 15). ................ 149
June 3, 1856 (11 Stat., 21). ----------------- 153
June 26, 1856 (11 Stat., 22). ----...--....... 156
August 18, 1856 (11 Stat., 473). . . . . . . . . . . . 130
March 3, 1857 (11 Stat., 195) . . . . . . . . 127, 232,251,426
March 3, 1857 (11 Stat., 251) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
May 11, 1858 (11 Stat., 285) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 427
June 2, 1858 (11 Stat., 294), sec. 3 ... . . . . . . 129, 443
March 12, 1860 (12 Stat., 3) ...... ....... --. 226
June 14, 1860 (12 Stat., 33), sec. 5....... --. 102
June 21, 1860 (12 Stat., 866) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 132
June 22, 1860 (12 Stat., 85).---------...--. 475
March 2, 1861 (12 Stat., 239). -- - - - - - - ...... 427
May 20, 1862 (12 Stat., 392), sec. 8... . . . . . . . 349
July 5, 1862 (12 Stat., 620), joint resolution. 153
May 5, 1864 (13 Stat., 64). -----............ 407
July 1, 1864 (13 Stat., 343). ---............. 337
(13 Stat., 332), Sec. 2.--------. 10}
July 2, 1864 (13 Stat , 365).----............ 251
March 3, 1865 (13 Stat., 526) -.......... 126, 232,426
September 29, 1865 (14 Stat., 687), treaty -- 147
July 4, 1866 (14 Stat., 87). ----------------- 232
July 13, 1866 (14 Stat., 93).-----..... tº º ºs º is tº 408
July 23, 1866 (14 Stat., 218). -----------.... 417
Sec. 1 ---------- 142
Sec. 4 ---------- 371
(14 Stat., 218) Sec 7. --------- 103,360
July 25, 1866 (14 Stat., 239), sec 2 - - - - - - - - - 485
July 27, 1866 (14 Stat., 292). --------------. 94
February 19, 1867 (15 Stat., 505), treaty ... 427
July 16, 1868 (15 Stat., 91) ------ tº e º º gº tº º tº Lº 342
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS,
53
. Page.
July 1, 1870 (16 Stat., 646) ---------------- 313
July 15, 1870 (16 Stat., 304). ------. . . . . . . . . 430
July 15, 1870 (16 Stat., 362), sec. 12 ........ 146
March 3, 1871 (16 Stat., 579) --...--...----- 243
March 3, 1871 (16 Stat., 573). - ............. 215
June 10, 1872 (17 Stat., 381). --...---------- 143
June 19, 1874 (18 Stat., 85) - - - - - - - - - - -...--. 25
June 22, 1874 (18 Stat., 167) ---...--------. 427
June 22, 1874 (18 Stat., 194). --....... . . . . 127
March 3, 1875 (18 Stat., 482) ........ --. 150, 523, 525
March 3, 1875 (18 Stat., 519) --............ 15
April 21, 1876 (19 SLat., 35), Sec. 1 ......... 251, 344
Sec. 2.--------. 209
March 3, 1877 (19 Stat., 377) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 445
March 3, 1877 (19 Stat., 403) ...... . . . . . . . . 211
June 3, 1878 (20 Stat., 89).......... 164, 178,282,381
June 14, 1878 (20 Stat., 113), Sec. 2. -----... 191, 370
March 3, 1879 (20 Stat., 352) - - - -...--------. 327
January 22, 1880 (21 Stat., 61) -----...----. 223
May 14, 1880 (21 Stat., 140), Sec. 1 ..... ---. 188, 450
Sec. 2.--------- 19, 370,
518, 553, 581
May 28, 1880 (21 Stat., 143).--........ ----- 146
June 9, 1880 (21 Stat., 169)..... -- . . . . . . . . . 211
June 15, 1880 (21 Stat., 237), sec. 2.- .33, 465, 493, 581
June 16, 1880 (21 Stat., 287) --------------. 293
December 15, 1880 (21 Stat., 311). --...----- 146
March 3, 1881 (21 Stat., 310) ---...--....... 393
March 3, 1881 (21 Stat., 505). --...--------. 224
March 3, 1881 (21 Stat., 511) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 303
August 7, 1882 (22 Stat., 327). --...--------. 327
March 3, 1883 (22 Stat., 485), sec. 2 . . . . . . . . 2, 13, 444
May 17, 1884 (23 Stat., 24) ----------...----- 128
July 4, 1884 (23 Stat., 101) . --...-----------. 528
January 31, 1885 (23 Stat., 296.-----...----. 15
February 25, 1885 (23 Stat., 321) - - - - - - an º ºs & 392
February 28, 1885 (23 Stat., 337) ---...--... 217
March 3, 1885 (23 Stat., 499) ---........... 271
VOLUME 5.
May 26, 1790 (1 Stat., 122). ---------------- 161
March 3, 1811 (2 Stat., 662). --------------- 515
April 29, 1816 (3 Stat., 329).----- * * * * s = sº e := e 570
February 22, 1819 (8 Stat., 252), treaty . . . . 158
March 2, 1819 (3 Stat., 491), Sec. 6 - - - - - - - - - 714.
March 3, 1819 (3 Stat., 528) ------------ * - ſº-º º 283
May 8, 1822 (3 Stat., 707 ------------------ 284, 677
March 3, 1823 (3 Stat., 756) - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. 158, 617
May 24, 1824 (4 Stat., 34) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 515
May 26, 1824 (4 Stat., 65) ---------------- ... 158, 617
January 12, 1825 (4 Stat., 80).------------- 317
May 20, 1826 (4 Stat., 179) -----. s gº gº º E tº a gº sº e 217, 545
May 23, 1828 (4 Stat., 284). -----...----- * * * * 677
May 24, 1828 (6 Stat., 382) ---------------- 618
May 26, 1830 (4 Stat., 405) -----. us tº e º º º sº º 679
January 23, 1832 (4 Stat., 496).------...----. 680
July 4, 1836 (5 Stat., 107) . . . . . ... ---...--. 73
September 4, 1841 (5 Stat., 453) ...--------. 547
March 3, 1843 (5 Stat., 619), Sec. 4 ......... 645
August 6, 1846 (9 Stat., 66) ----------...--. 284
March 2, 1849 (9 Stat., 352)... --- • gº gº gº tº tº º ºs & 464, 514
March 3, 1849 (9 Stat, 395) .--.. tº º m sº sº º ºs s tº º 573
September 27, 1850 (9 Stat., 496).---------. 428
September 28, 1850 (9 Stat., 519) ... --..... 31, 102
464, 516, 637, 715
Page.
March 3, 1851 (9 Stat., 631).........--. . 64, 323,483
August 31, 1852 (10 Stat., 148) ...... ------ 531
February 9, 1853 (10 Stat., 155). -----...----- 317
February 14, 1853 (10 Stat., 158).---------- 428
March 2, 1853 (10 Stat., 172). -- - - - - - - - - - - - - 217
March 3, 1853 (10 Stat., 244) . . . . . . . ----- 64, 270, 545
July 17, 1854 (10 Stat., 305), Sec. 5. --...--. 428
February 22, 1855 (10 Stat., 1165), treaty. -- 102,541
March 2, 1855 (10 Stat., 630) --------------. 714
March 2, 1855 (10 Stat., 634)....... -------. 464, 637
June 3, 1856 (11 Stat., 10) ----------------- 82,512
June 3, 1856 (11 Stat., 21) ----------------- 432
August 18, 1856 (11 Stat., 87). -----...----- 633
March 3, 1857 (11 Stat., 195).-------------- 144, 365
March 3, 1857 (11 Stat., 200), sec. 2.--...-- 712
March 3, 1857 (11 Stat., 251). ------------- 464,637
June 2, 1858 (11 Stat., 294), Sec. 3.------- 284, 510, 617
June 12, 1858 (11 Stat., 336), Sec. 6 - - - - - - - - - 633
December 22, 1858 (11 Stat., 374) ----...--- 61
February 26, 1859 (11 Stat., 385)----------. 216,545
March 12, 1860 (12 Stat., 3).--------------- 102
June 14, 1860 (12 Stat., 33) ---------------- 321, 416
June 21, 1860 (12 Stat., 72), Sec. 6... ---...--. 705
June 22, 1860 (12 Stat., 84) ---------------- 531
January 29, 1861 (12 Stat., 127) Sec. 3.----- 713
July 1, 1862 (12 Stat., 489).------- - - - - - - - - 662
Sec. 3.- - - - - 62, 194,470, 553
Sec. 9.----------- 62
March 3, 1863 (12 Stat., 754).-------------- 265
March 3, 1863 (12 Stat., 819). -------------- 447
May 5, 1864 (13 Stat., 66)------------------ 83, 512
May 7, 1864 (13 Stat., 693), treaty. --------- 102
May 12, 1864 (13 Stat., 72), Sec. 1.----------- 203
July 1, 1864 (13 Stat., 332). -- - - - - - - - - - - - - 63,321,495
July 2, 1864 (13 Stat., 356)----------------- 663
. sec. 4.---------- 62
July 2, 1864 (13 Stat., 365), sec. 2.--------. 138
sec. 3. . .312, 335, 460, 474
July 2, 1864 (13 Stat., 374) ----------------- 270
July 6, 1864 (13 Stat., 332) ---------------- 46
March 3, 1865 (13 Stat., 504). ----- * * * * * * * * * 63
March 3, 1865(13 Stat., 526) --------------- 144, 565
March 3, 1865 (13 Stat., 530. --------------- 265
July 3, 1866 (14 Stat., 78).----------------- 432
July 3, 1866 (14 Stat., 79) ------------------ 472, 663
July 23, 1866 (14 Stat., 218), sec. 6.--------. 545
Sec. 8. --------- 47
July 25, 1866 (14 Stat., 236). --------------- 136
July 26, 1866 (14 Stat., 289) ---------------. 135
July 27, 1866 (14 Stat., 292).-----...----. 415, 437, 691
March 2, 1867 (14 Stat., 541)...... * * * * * * * s tº 267
March 6, 1868 (15 Stat., 39). --------------- 547
April 29, 1868 (15 Stat., 635), treaty ...---- [. 344
May 7, 1868 (15 Stat., 649), treaty - x-...--. 139
June 8, 1868 as stat, 87).........'....... 548
July 27, 1868 (15 Stat., 238). --------------. 85
April 10, 1869 (16 Stat., 56), joint res ------ 691
April 10, 1869 (16 Stat., 55)---------------- 305
May 4, 1870 (16 Stat., 94) ------------------ 549
June 28, 1870 (16 Stat., 382), joint res. ----- 381
July 14, 1870 (16 Stat., 277). --...-...----- 271
July 14, 1870 (16 Stat., 279).................530, 554
July 15, 1870 (16 Stat., 305).---. A º e º e º º sº tº tº tº 345
July 15, 1870 (15Stat., 362).----...--------.305,539
1March 3, 1871 (16 Stat., 573).------...----- 415
54
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
Page.
March 3, 1871 (16 Stat., 573) sec. 23........ 693
March 3, 1871 (16 Stat., 581). - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 548
March 3, 1871 (16 Stat., 582)............... 432
March 3, 1871 (16 Stat., 588)............... 565
March 3, 1871 (16 Stat., 601), joint res . . . . . 530
May 9, 1872 (17 Stat., 90) . . . . . . . ........... 306, 539
April 15, 1874 (18 Stat., 29).............. -- 271
June 15, 1874 (18 Stat., 72) ........ . . . . . . . . 271
June 19, 1874 (18 Stat., 85) ................ 103
June 22, 1874 (18 Stat., 202).............. 546
June 22, 1874 (18 Stat., 203).----. . . . . . . . . . 145
March 3, 1875 (18 Stat., 474) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 698
April 21, 1876 (19 Stat., 35), sec. 1. - - - - . . . . . 145, 205
August 11, 1876 (19 Stat., 127) : - - - - - - - - - - - - 306
February 28, 1877 (19 Stat., 254), treaty ... 344
March 3, 1877 (198tat., 377). 121, 152, 168,482,694, 708
March 3, 1877 (19 Stat., 392). -- . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
March 3, 1877 (19 Stat., 403).----...--..... 458
March 3, 1877 (19 Stat., 404) - - - - -.......... 136
June 3, 1878 (20 Stat., 89) ................. 38
June 14, 1878 (20 Stat., 113), sec. 7 . . . . . . . . . 234
March 3, 1879 (20 Stat., 472) .............. 125, 407
May 14, 1880 (21 Stat., 140), Sec. 1.......... 712
Sec. 2 - - - - - - - -. 134, 359,
387, 404, 444, 519
Sec. 3... - - - - - - 95, 172, 625
May 28, 1880 (21 Stat., 143) -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 304, 537
June 9, 1880 (21 Stat., 169) - - - - - - .......... 458
June 15, 1880 (21 Stat., 237), sec. 2. . . . . . . . 10, 11, 117,
302, 336, 530, 535, 592
June 16, 1880 (21 Stat., 287) ... ---....... 115,438, 528
August 7, 1882 (22 Stat., 341).............. 708
March 3, 1883 (22 Stat., 484). -- - - - - - - - . . . . . 578
April 2, 1884 (23 Stat., 10)... ----...----.... 698
May 13, 1884 (23 Stat., 22) ... -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 338
June 28, 1884 (23 Stat., 61) ................ 271
July 4, 1884 (23 Stat., 89) ... -- - - - - - - - - - - - -. 102, 541
July 4, 1884 (23 Stat., 101) Sec. 5........... 337
July 5, 1884 (23 Stat., 103) -----...--------. 555, 634
July 7, 1884 (23 Stat., 186) ................ 505
January 31, 1885 (23 Stat., 296) ............ 271, 550
July 6, 1886 (24 Stat., 123) ---------------- 269
August 2, 1886 (24 Stat., 214). --........... 708
August 4, 1886 (24 Stat., 239).... - ........ 579
February 8, 1887 (24 Stat., 388)............ 520
February 8, 1887 (24 Stat., 391) sec. 3...... 594
March 3, 1887 (24 Stat., 550) ...----......... 627
VOLUME 6.
March 2, 1805 (2 Stat., 324). - .............. 464, 568
March 3, 1807 (2 Stat., 440). -------...----- 447
June 13, 1812 (2 Stat., 748) ................ 464, 586
March 2, 1819 (3 Stat., 489) ----...--....... 493
May 11, 1820 (3 Stat., 573).------.......... 474
February 28, 1823 (3 Stat , 727) -----...... 474
May 20, 1826 (4 Stat., 179)................. 496, 697
May 24, 1828 (4 Stat., 305). ------.......... 348
February 28, 1831 (7 Stat., 348) ............ 159
September 4, 1841 (5 Stat., 453) ........... 357
Sec. 10..... 497
March 3, 1843 (5 Stat., 619) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
August 14, 1848 (9 Stat., 323). --...-...--...- 47
September 27, 1850 (9 Stat., 496) .......... 47, 597
March 3, 1851 (9 Stat., 631) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
February 9, 1853 (10 Stat., 155) ........ 443, 445, 535
}
|
|
|
|
Page
February 14, 1853 (10 Stat., 158) ... . . . . . . . . 597
Sec. 9. ----. 17, 46
March 2, 1853 (10 Stat., 172) .... . . . . . . . . . . . 73
March 3, 1853 (10 Stat., 244) . . . . . . . . . . .158, 302, 697
Sec. 6 - - - - - - - - - 20
March 3, 1853 (10 Stat., 258) sec. 2...... . . . 314
July 17, 1854 (10 Stat., 304) . . . . . . . ... ----.. 649
July 17, 1854 (10 Stat., 305) sec. 5. --...--.. 596
December 26, 1854 (10 Stat., 1132), treaty.. 317
June 3, 1856 (11 Stat., 17) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 427
June 3, 1856 (11 Stat., 20) .......... . . . . . . . 191, 196
June 3, 1856 (11 Stat., 21) .... . . . . . . . . . 451, 525,650
March 3, 1857 (11 Stat., 195) ....... ... . . . . . 198
June 2, 1858 (11 Stat, , 294) .......... . . . . . 436, 447
February 26, 1859 (11 Stat, 385). . . . . . . . 73, 496, 697
February 28, 1861 (12 Stat., 172). . . . . . . . . . . 413
May 20, 1862 (12 Stat., 392), sec. 2 . . . . . . . . . 135
July 1, 1862 (12 Stat., 489) . . . . . . . . . . . . .322, 386, 658
July 5, 1862 (12 Stat., 620) joint res. . . . . . . . 452
April 12, 1864 (13 Stat., 690)....... -- . . . . . 101
May 5, 1864 (13 Stat., 66) - - - - - - - - - - - ºr - - 191, 197, 209
May 12, 1864 (13 Stat., 72). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48, 54,611
July 1, 1864 (13 Stat., 343), coal land . . . . . 499
July 1, 1864 (13 Stat., 335) railroad selec-
tions------------------- --------------. 526
July 1, 1864 (13 Stat., 332) ...... . . . . . . . . . . 180
July 2, 1864 (13 Stat., 365) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400
Sec. 6. -- . . . . . . 11, 508,658
July 2, 1864 (13 Stat., 356) ...... . . . . . . . 322, 387, 580
March 3, 1865 (13 Stat., 526) . . . . . . ... ----. 611
July 3, 1866 (14 Stat., 30). --............... 387
July 21, 1866 (14 Stat., 66). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 744
July 23, 1866 (14 Stät., 218), sec. 4 .... . . . . . 685
Sec. 7 -------- 434
July 27, 1866 (14 Stat., 292) . . . . . . . . . . . . 86, 351, 679
July 28, 1866 (14 Stat., 338) . . . . . . . . . . . 443, 445, 535
February 23, 1867 (15 Stat , 519), treaty . . . 251
March 2, 1867 (14 Stat., 635) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
March 3, 1869 (15 Stat., 324) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387
March 3, 1869 (15 Stat., 348) joint res . . . . . 390
April 10, 1869 (16 Stat., 57) joint res ... ... 400
April 10, 1869 (16 Stat., 45)............ . . . . 428
April 10, 1869 (16 Stat., 54) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 590
May 4, 1870 (16 Stat , 94). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292
May 6, 1870 (16 Stat., 118). . . ... --------... 590
May 31, 1870 (16 Stat., 378) joint res . . . . . . 401
March 3, 1871 (16 Stat., 579), sec. 23 . . . .679, 812, 817
May 9, 1872 (17 Stat., 90). --...-----...-...-. 601
March 3, 1873 (17 Stat., 607). .......... . . . . 500
April 9, 1874 (18 Stat., 281). ---...--...----. 191
June 20, 1874 (18 Stat., 111) ..... -- . . . . . . . . 386
June 22, 1874 (18 Stat., 194) 292, 611, 661, 717, 815, 820
March 3, 1875 (18 Stat., 474), admission of
Colorado - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 412
March 3, 1875 (18 Stat., 482), right of way. 449
April 21, 1876 (19 Stat., 35) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 567,622
Sec. 1. ---------. 223
Sec. 3.---------- 91, 427
July 4, 1876 (19 Stat., 78) -------...--------. 744
July 31, 1876 (19 Stat., 121) ..... --...----. 88
March 1, 1877 (19 Stat., 267). --...--...--... 302, 552
March 3, 1877 (19 Stat., 377) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 662
March 3, 1877 (19 Stat., 403).--...----.... 138
March 3, 1877 (19 Stat., 404). --...-....... 381
June 3, 1878 (20 Stat., 89) ...... 32, 114, 630, 691, 719
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
Page.
June 14, 1878 (20 Stat., 113), timber culture 280,
- 625, 690
June 14, 1878 (20 Stat., 113), transmuted
filing----------------------------------- 380, 515
March 3, 1879 (20 Stat., 472). . . . . . . . . . . 111, 381, 575
May 14, 1880 (21 Stat., 140), sec. 1 ........ 4, 579
Sec. 2 - - - - - - - - 284, 600
Sec. 3 - - - - - - -. 135,257,
306, 516, 653
i
Page
July 23, 1866 (14 Stat., 218, sec. 1 ......... 397, 543
Sec. 6.-------- 272,348
Sec. 7 - - - - - - - - 210
July 25, 1866 (14 Stat., 239) ............... 240
January 22, 1867 (14 Stat., 377) ........... 134
July 1, 1868 (15 Stat., 255), joint res...... 102
April 10, 1869 (16 Stat., 57). joint res..... 102
May 31, 1870 (16 Stat., 378), joint res..... 102
July 9, 1870 (16 Stat., 217)................ 550
July 14, 1870 (16 Stat., 279) ............... 16
July 15, 1870 (16 Stat., 314). --............ 135
March 3, 1871 (16 Stat., 573), sec. 12 ...... 487
March 3, 1871 (16 Stat., 601). --...--....... 16
May 10, 1872 (17 Stat., 94)................. 549
March 3, 1873 (17 Stat., 607)............... 172
June 9, 1874 (18 Stat., 65) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403, 430, 548
June 22, 1874 (18 Stat., 194)................ 481
March 3, 1875 (18 Stat., 474), Colorado. . . . . 460
March 3, 1875 (18 Stat., 482). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 541
April 21, 1876 (19 Stat., 35). . . . . . .......... 223
June 22, 1876 (19 Stat., 73) ................ 56
January 12, 1877 (19 Stat., 221) . . . . . . . . . . . . 549
March 1, 1877 (19 Stat., 267). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 580
March 3, 1877 (19 Stat., 392), town site. . . . . 143
June 3, 1878 (20 Stat., 89) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140, 555
Sec. 2 ------------ 10
June 14, 1878 (20 Stat., 113). Sec. 2. . . . . . . . . . 51
Sec. 3.--------- 9
March 3, 1879 (20 Stat., 472) ............... 60
May 14, 1880 (21 Stat., 140), sec. 1 .......... 227
Sec. 2.- - - - . . . .9, 186, 553
May 28, 1880 (21 Stat., 143)........ 113, 175, 539, 601
June 8, 1880 (21 Stat., 166) ............... 551
June 9, 1880 (21 Stat., 169) ............... 138, 711
June 10, 1880 (21 Stat., 172) .............. 659
June 15, 1880 (21 Stat., 237), sec. 1... . . . . . 725,738
Sec. 2.------. 8,94, 95,
409, 446, 457, 641, 766
June 15, 1880 (21 Stat., 199), Ute Reserva-
tion ------------------------------------ 414
June 16, 1880 (21 Stat., 287). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 384, 666
December 15, 1880 (21 Stat., 311) . . . . . . . . 175,539
January 13, 1881 (21 Stat., 315) ...... . . . . . 751
March 3, 1881 (21 Stat., 511). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369, 569
April 26, 1882 (22 Stat., 49).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 621
August 4, 1882 (22 Stat., 217)...... * * * * * * g. 600
July 28, 1882 (22 Stat., 178). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414
April 2, 1884 (23 Stat., 10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419
April 23, 1884 (23 Stat., 12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 502
June 28, 1884 (23 Stat., 61)................ 443, 445
July 5, 1884 (23 Stat., 103). -- . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
January 31, 1885 (23 Stat., 296) . . . . . . . . . . . 686
Sec. 2 ... --. 677
IFebruary 28, 1885 (23 Stat., 337).... . . . . . . 157
May 15, 1886 (24 Stat., 23). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 558
July 6, 1886 (24 Stat., 123). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 680, 813
March 3, 1887 (24 Stat., 556) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71, 272.
276,390, 481, 544, 595, 750
Sec. 3.--------- 33, 537
May 28, 1880 (21 Stat., 143) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31, 278
June 15, 1880 (21 Stat., 199), Ute land...... 191
June 15, 1880 (21 Stat., 237), sec. 2 . . . . . . . . . 94, 145,
148, 281,301,325, 330, 342, 381, 500, 512, 570
June 16, 1880 (21 Stat., 287) . . . . . 30, 100, 297,474, 510
WOLUME 7. March 3, 1881 (21 Stat., 505). . . . . ......... . 412
March 3, 1819 (3 Stat., 528), sec. 3 . . . . . . . . 1,152 August 7, 1882 (22 Stat., 341).............. 190
March 3, 1819 (3 Stat., 526) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 March 3, 1883 (22 Stat., 487)........ 461, 512, 560, 570
May 24, 1823 (4 Stat., 301) ---------------- 156 July 5, 1884 (23 Stat., 103) tº º E gº ſº º ºs e º ºs º º sº ºn 191, 369, 403
May 24, 1824 (4 Stat., 31). -- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 May 15, 1886 (24 stat, 23) * * * is gº e º g tº s = is e s = º sº 236
April 5, 1832 (4 Stat., 503).--------------. 173 August 2, 1886 (2. Stat., 214). ------------- 190
September 4, 1841 (5 Stat., 453) . . . . . . . . . . 172,548 June 29, 1888 (25 Stat.,231)................ 335
Sec. 8 - - 397 te
March 3, 1843 (5 Stat., 619) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 VOLUME 8.
May 8, 1846 (9 Stat., 9) - - - - - - - - - - - - ....... 173 March 20, 1804 (5 Stat., 596)............... 565
September 27, 1850 (9 Stat., 496). ......... 545 March 27, 1804 (2 Stat., 309). .............. 127
September 28, 1850 (9 Stat., 519)....... 243, 514, 572 April 21, 1806 (2 Stat., 391) . . . ............ 127
March 3, 1853 (10 Stat., 256).............. 156 February 25, 1811 (2 Stat., 617)............ 127
March 3, 1853 (10 Stat., 244) sec. 7.... . . . . 272,349 March 3, 1811 (2 Stat., 662)................ 128, 564
July 22, 1854 (10 Stat., 308) ............... 551 | April 25, 1812 (2 Stat., 713) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 392
March 2, 1855 (10 Stat., 634).----...--..... 243 April 12, 1814 (3 Stat., 123).............. -- 82
May 17, 1856 (11 Stat., 15) ................ 56 | March 3, 1819 (3 Stat., 528) ................ 391
March 3, 1857 (11 Stat., 195) .............. 151 May 11, 1820 (3 Stat., 573).... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
March 3, 1857 (11 Stat., 251) .......... . . . . 243, 514 May 20, 1826 (4 Stat., 179)........ . . . . . . . . . 126,563
June 2, 1858 (11 Stat., 294), sec. 3......... 1, 152 June 23, 1836 (5 Stat., 59) ............ . . . . . 56]
February 26, 1859 (11 Stat., 385)...... . . . . 580 August 3, 1846 (9 Stat., 51), sec. 5.......... 422
July 1, 1862 (12 Stat., 489) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 September 28, 1850 (9 Stat., 519)...... 65, 78, 308, 369
July 2, 1864 (13 Stat., 356) ---............. 13,406 June 10, 1852 (10 Stat., 8).................. 165
July 2, 1864 (13 Stat., 265)................ 86, 100, March 2, 1853 (10 Stat., 172)............... 497
131, 238,244, 357, 578 March 3, 1853 (10 Stat., 244)............... 70,498
March 3, 1865 (13 Stat., 526) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 Sec. 7. -------. 4.
May 7, 1866 (14 Stat., 355) joint res....... 102 March 3, 1853 (10 Stat., 258) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
July 3, 1866 (14 Stat., 79)................. 13 July 17, 1854 (10 Stat., 304) ................ 207
56 DIGEST
OF LAND DECISIONS.
Page.
July 22, 1854 (10 Stat., 308)............ ---. 70
August 4, 1854 (10 Stat., 576) .............. 70
March 2, 1855 (10 Stat., 634)...... . . . . . . . . . 622
May 15, 1856 (11 Stat., 9). . . . . . . . tº as a tº ºr nº º is tº 546
June 3, 1856 (11 Stat., 17).................. 33
June 3, 1856 (11 Stat., 20). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 590
June 3, 1856 (11 Stat., 21). - . . . . . . . . . . .----- 87, 189
February 26, 1857 (11 Stat., 166) .......... 31
March 3, 1857 (11 Stat , 195). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
March 3, 1857 (11 Stat., 251), swamp land. . 65,370
387
June 2, 1858 (11 Stat., 294), sec. 3. . . . . 80, 391, 455, 463
February 26, 1859 (11 Stat., 385). . . . . . . . . . 4, 308, 495
March 12, 1860 (12 Stat., 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
May 30, 1862 (12 Stat., 410) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
July 1, 1862 (12 Stat., 489), Sec. 7... . . . . . . . 292
July 5, 1862 (12 Stat., 620), joint res. --..... 190
July 12, 1862 (12 Stat., 624), joint res....... 258
March 3, 1863 (12 Stat., 772). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
July 2, 1864 (13 Stat., 365), Sec. 1.-- . . . . . . . . 17
Sec. 3.----------- 13
July 2, 1864 (13 Stat., 356) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292
March 3, 1865 (13 Stat., 526). --...- . . . . . . . . 255
June 21, 1866 (14 Stat., 66). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155, 514
June 4, 1866 (14 Stat., 87) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 471
July 13, 1866 (14 Stat., 97). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
July 23, 1866 (14 Stat., 218), sec. 1. . . . . . . . . . 480
Sec. 4 and 5.... 78
Sec. 6- - - - - - - - - - 4
Sec. 17. . . . . . . . . 144, 279
July 25, 1866 (14 Stat., 210). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 590
July 25, 1866 (14 Stat., 239). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 590
July 27, 1866 (14 Stat., 292). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
June 25, 1868 (15 Stat., 80) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 590
July 25, 1868 (15 Stat., 178). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 495
February 25, 1869 (15 Stat., 440). . . . . . . . . . . 287
April 10, 1869 (16 Stat., 45) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
May 31, 1870 (16 Stat., 378), joint res. . . . . . 13
July 15, 1870 (16 Stat., 304), sec. 1. . . . . . . . . 422
July 15, 1870 (16 Stat., 362). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
March 3, 1871 (16 Stat., 588) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
June 8, 1872 (17 Stat., 339). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
March 3, 1873 (17 Stat., 609) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 539
June 22, 1874 (18 Stat., 194) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 472
March 3, 1875 (18 Stat., 420), Indian home-
stead.----------------------------------- 57
March 3, 1875 (18 Stat., 482)............. 41, 115, 374
April 21, 1876 (19 Stat., 35), sec. 1. . . . . . . . . . 318
July 4, 1876 (19 Stat., 73) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156, 515
March 1, 1877 (19 Stat., 267). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 307, 326
March 3, 1877 (19 Stat., 377) . . . . . . . . . . . . 105, 368,432
March 4, 1877 (19 Stat, , 403), final proof... .411, 510
June 3, 1878 (20 Stat., 89)................ 52, 159,412
June 14, 1878 (20 Stat., 113)................ 20, 358
Sec. 2.---------- 454, 545
March 3, 1879 (20 Stat., 472). . . . . 29, 59, 316, 389, 484
March 3, 1879 (20 Stat., 472), homestead... 383, 428
January 22, 1880 (21 Stat., 61)... . . . . . . . . . . 223
May 14, 1880 (21 Stat., 140), Sec. 1..... . . . . . 372, 605
Sec. 2. . . . . . . . 52, 282, 358
Sec. 3. . . . . ----- 46, 207,
286, 448, 529
May 28, 1880 (21 Stat., 143). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111, 173
June 9, 1880 (21 Stat., 169)...... . . . . . . . . 411,484, 510
June 9, 1880 (21 Stat., 171), Florida. ...... 380
Page.
June 15, 1880 (21 Stat., 237), sec. 2....75,235, 245, 330
403, 532, 579, 595, 606
Sec. 3 - - - - - - - - 87
June 16, 1880 (21 Stat., 287) . . . 163,322,463, 492, 530
January 13, 1881 (21 Stat., 315)............ 344
February 18, 1881 (21 Stat., 326). - - - - - - - - - - 55
March 3, 1883 (22 Stat., 487) - - - - - - - - 74, 297,448, 532
July 4, 1884 (23 Stat., 89).-----............ 409
July 4, 1884 (23 Stat., 96), Indian home-
stead.---------------------------------- 57
July 5, 1884 (23 Stat., 103).----............ 318
January 31, 1885 (23 Stat., 296)........... 531
February 28, 1885 (23 Stat., 337)........... 530
August 4, 1886 (24 Stat., 239).---...- . . . . . . 296
February 8, 1887 (24 S; at., 388), sec. 4.- ... 647
February 8, 1887 (24 Stat., 391)............ 25, 377
March 3, 1887 (24 Stat., 556). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27, 165,
324, 348, 382, 570, 588
Sec. 3. -- - - - - - - - 318, 382
August 9, 1888 (25 Stat., 393)....... -- - - - - - 495
October 2, 1888 (25 Stat., 525) - - - - - - - - - - -. - 365, 613
March 2, 1889 (25 Stat., 854) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457
Sec. 2.--------- 422
Sec. 4.--------- 530, 583
See. 5. --...----. 428,474
Sec. 6- - - - - - - - - - 500
Sec. 7. -- - - - - - - - 581
March 2, 1889 (25 Stat., 1003), Oklahoma. ... 336,425
VOLUME, 9.
April 25, 1812 (2 Stat., 713).---------...--. 514
March 3, 1819 (3 Stat., 528). ----...-.... --. 514
March 3, 1819 (3 Stat., 528), Sec. 3. ...----- 500
May 11, 1820 (3 Stat., 573) ----...--------. 166
June 2, 1825 (7 Stat., 240). ---...--...--...--. 588
May 20, 1826 (4 Stats, 179) ................ 157
January 9, 1837 (5 Stat., 135). -- . . . . . . . . --. 589
September 4, 1841 (5 Stat., 453) . . . . . . . . . . . 589
Sec. 10. -- . . 411
March 3, 1843 (5 Stat., 619)................ 596
August 8, 1846 (9 Stat., 77). ---------...--.. 637
August 14, 1848 (9 Stat., 323).----...... . . . 601
March 2, 1849 (9 Stat., 352) - - - - - - - - - - - - - .. 127,640
September 27, 1850 (9 Stat., 496)...... . . . . . 234
Sec. 14. . . . 602
September 28, 1850 (9 Stat., 519)...... . . . . 124, 332,
361, 458, 640
February 14, 1853 (10 Stat., 158) sec. 5. . . . . 234
sec. 9... .68, 104,602
March 2, 1853 (10 Stat., 172) ... . . . . . . . . . . . 602
March 3, 1853 (10 Stat., 244) ...... • * * * * * * * 49, 408
Sec. 6. . . . . . . . . 449
Sec. i - - - - - - - - - 415
March 27, 1854 (10 Stat., 269)... . . . . . . . . . . . 404
July 17, 1854 (10 Stat., 305). --...-- - - - - - - - - 234
Sec. 6----------. 602
July 22, 1854 (10 Stat., 308).--------------. 589
September 30, 1854 (10 Stat., 1109) ---...--. 392
February 10, 1855 (10 Stat. 849) . . . ....... 114
March 2, 1855 (10 Stat., 634)... - - - - - - - -. 125,458,640
May 15, 1856 (11 Stat., 9) - - - - - - - - tº , s is ºs a 370, 597, 637
June 3, 1856 (11 Stat., 20). -----...------- 221, 465, 483.
March 3, 1857 (11 Stat., 195). ---...----. . . . 649
March 3, 1857 (11 Stat., 251), swamp land. 125,
458, 640
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
January 13, 1881 (21 Stat., 315)............
February 18, 1881 (21 Stat., 326) ...........
July 28, 1882 (22 Stat., 178) sec. 3......... *
March 3, 1883 (22 Stat., 484) ............. -
March 3, 1883 (22 Stat., 487), Alabama
lands.--------------------------- 178,203,
is sº as ſº gº tº gº º ſº tº ſº se sº as s e
February 28, 1885 (23 Stat., 337)
July 6, 1886 (24 Stat., 123) ................
August 4, 1886 (24 Stat., 239)..............
February 8, 1887 (24 Stat., 388), allotment
act ---------- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * = * *
March 3, 1887 (24 Stat., 526)...............
March 3, 1887 (24 Stat., 556), railroad ad-
Justment .
Sec. 2.------
Sec. 4.------
May 14, 1888 (25 Stat.,622), joint resolution.
May 15, 1888 (25 Stat., 150)..... * = * * * * * * * * *
October 2, 1888 (25 Stat., 526) ... . . . . . . . . . .
March 2, 1889 (25Stat.,854), homestead, etc.
Sec. 1 ----------
sec. 2... 145, 312,
Sec. 3 - - - - - - - - - -
Sec. 4.----------
Sec. 6 ----------
Sec. 7 ----------
March 2, 1889 (25 Stat., 1005), sec. 13, Okla-
homa -
March 2, 1889 (25 Stat., 1008), act of for-
feiture ---------------------------------
VOLUME 10.
May 18, 1796 (1 Stat., 464), salt springs ...
April 30, 1802 (2 Stat., 173) salt springs...
April 25, 1812 (2 Stat., 716) . . . . . . . . . . .-----
April 19, 1816 (3 Stat., 289), salt springs - -
August 19, 1825 (7 Stat., 272), treaty ......
May 24, 1828 (4 Stat., 348).................
July 4, 1836 (5 Stat., 107), sec. 14
September 4, 1841 (5 Stat., 453)
September 4, 1841 (5 Stat., 453), sec. 8
March 3, 1843 (5 Stat., 619). --------------.
September 20, 1850 (9 Stat., 466)
September 27, 1850 (9 Stat., 496)
September 28, 1850 (9 Stat., 519)
February 14, 1853 (10 Stat., 158), sec. 9....
March 5, 1853 (10 Stat., 244) ....... --- - - - -
May 10, 1855 (10 Stat., 1053)...--------...--.
July 17, 1854 (10 Stat., 305), sec. 6... -- - - - - - -
July 22, 1854 (10 Stat., 308)
December 26, 1854 (10 Stat., 1132), Indian
** = sº º º tº s ∈ sº tº
s º ºs s º tº e º sº gº gº
s tº dº ſº º º is tº º ºs
s is ºs e º sº as ºr sº as a s = ºr
May 15, 1856 (11 Stat., 9). -----------------
June 3, 1856 (11 Stat., 18)
June 3, 1856 (11 Stat., 20)
June 3, 1856 (11 Stat., 21) ..... tº sº * = * * * s s m sº e
March 3, 1857 (11 Stat., 195)
* * * * * º º sº e s sº tº sº gº tº tº ſº
635, 643
68, 104
261
221, 598
637, 649
199
604
282
271,
382, 388
11
433
543
123, 283
333
228, 542
223
223
168
176, 575
637
63, 147
676
686
- Tage.
June 2, 1858 (11 Stat., 294), sec. 3. ...... 166, 498, 514
February 26, 1859 (11 Stat., 385)........... 554
June 22, 1860 (12 Stat., 85) -----...-----.... 556
May 20, 1862 (12 Stat., 392). --...----...----- 144, 589
June 2, 1862 (12 Stat., 62). -----------...-- tº 589
July 1, 1862 (12 Stat., 489), sec. 3.......... . 214, 595
July 12, 1862 (12 Stat., 543).--------------. 637
May 5, 1864 (13 Stat., 66)---...--........... 222, 483
May 26, 1864 (13 Stat., 85)........... tº a sº º sº. 602
June 2, 1864 (12 Stat., 95)......... -------- 371
July 2, 1864 (13 Stat., 356), Union Pacific.. 214
July 2, 1864 (13 Stat., 365), Sec. 3...... * : * º tº sº 454
Sec. 8----------- 416
March 3, 1865 (13 Stat., 526), Sec. 4 ..... --. 454
September 29, 1865 (14 Stat., 687) ---...... 588
Nſay 7, 1866 (14 Stat., 355), joint resolution. 416
July 23, 1866 (14 Stat., 218). --...----------- 112
Sec. 7. ---------. 241,445
July 27, 1886 (14 Stat., 292). -----...--------. 429
March 2, 1867 (14 Stat., 544).--------...... 558
July 1, 1868 (15 Stat., 255), joint resolution 417
February 25, 1869 (15 Stat., 275). ---...--.. 554
April 10, 1869 (16 Stat., 55). --------------. 589
July 14, 1870 (10 Stat., 279).----...-----.... 358, 596
July 15, 1870 (16 Stat., 362). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 589
March 3, 1871 (16 Stat., 579), Southern Pa-
cific--------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 471
March 2, 1871 (16 Stat., 582), Des Moines
River Lands ------------ tº e s = º ºs º e º as s = = * * 639
March 3, 1871 (16 Stat., 601), prečmption . 596
May 9, 1872 (17 Stat., 90). ----------------- 589
May 10, 1872 (17 Stat., 91) ---, -----------. 179
May 21, 1872 (17 Stat., 140). --...--...--...--. 114
June 10, 1872 (17 Stat., 378). -----...-. = * * * * 558
March 3, 1873 (17 Stat., 634). --...----. . . . . . 465
June 22, 1874 (18 Stat., 194). ------------. 72, 237, 649
June 22, 1874 (18 Stat., 203), St. Paul and
Pacific ------------ * = & sº sº tº • * * * * * * * * g a m = s = 246
June 23, 1874 (18 Stat., 283) ---------...---- 589
March 3, 1875 (18 Stat., 474), Colorado . . . . 553
April 21, 1876 (19 Stat., 35). ------------ 155, 407,423
Sec. 1.---------. 418
Sec. 3.----------- 247
May 20, 1876 (17 Stat., 54). --...------------ 351
July 5, 1876 (19 Stat., 74) ------------------ 331
March 1, 1877 (19 Stat., 267) - - - - - - - - - - - - -. 106, 208
March 3, 1877 (19 Stat., 377). ---------...--. 7,49,
- 202, 205, 272,332,381,419
June 3, 1878 (20 Stat., 89). --...------...--. 12, 335, 384
June 14, 1878 (20 Stat., 113) --------------. 87, 285
Sec. 2.--------. 350
March 3, 1879 (20 Stat., 472), final proof. . . 284
March 3, 1879 (20 Stat., 472), additional
homestead ----------------------------. 402
March 16, 1880 (21 Stat., 68) ---....... --. 331
May 14, 1880 (21 Stat., 140) sec. 2.......... 193,211,
287, 329, 441, 462
Sec. 3.- - - - - - - - - 452, 516
May 28, 1880 (21 Stat., 143) ...... * = e º ſº º 100, 353, 589
June 15, 1880 (21 Stat., 199), Ute treaty .. 293
June 15, 1880 (21 Stat., 237) Sec. 2.... . . . . 18, 75, 97,
178, 195, 311, 390, 604
June 16, 1880 (21 Stat., 287)..... 51, 104, 262,643, 671
June 16, 1880 (21 Stat., 291), Osage land. . . 589
December 15, 1880 (21 Stat., 311).......... 589
March 3, 1857 (11 Stat., 251) ... .45, 121, 163,393, 394
March 4, 1859 (11 Stat., 425)
June 21, 1860 (12 Stat., 70)
606
168
58
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
Page.
June 22, 1860 (12 Stat., 87) --............. 616
July 1, 1862 (12 Stat., 489), Union Pacific. 168,281
467, 569
March 11, 1863 (12 Stat., 1249) ............ 5
May 5, 1864 (13 Stat., 66). ----. . . . . . . . . . . . . 63, 147
May 7, 1864 (13 Stat., 695). ................ 5
June 2, 1864 (13 Stat., 95) ................. 176
June 7, 1864 (13 Stat., 119).... . . . . . ....... 676
July 2, 1864 (13 Stat., 356), Union Pacific... 168,281,
- 467,569
July 2, 1864 (13 Stat., 365), Northern Pa-
cific, sec. 3.---------------------. . . . . 258, 427,645
Sec. 6.----------- - - ------- 307, 542, 655, 663
June 21, 1866 (14 Stat., 66), sec. 2.......... 545
June 21, 1866 (14 Stat., 360) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
July 4, 1866 (14 Stat., 87) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 685
July 5, 1866 (14 Stat., 89). --..... --...----. 456
July 23, 1866 (14 Stat., 218)................ 218
Sec. 7. --...------ 242
Sec. 8. ---------. 63
July 25, 1866 (14 Stat. 236), Missouri, Kan-
sas and Texas RWy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 504
July 25, 1866 (14 Stat., 239), California and
Oregon grant----------------------...--- 499
July 27, 1866 (14 Stat., 292)...... • * * * * * * * * * 215
April 29, 1868 (15 Stat., 635), treaty . . . . . . . 3.29
May 31, 1870 (16 Stat., 378) joint res . . . . . . 16
July 14, 1870 (16 Stat., 277) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 637
July 14, 1870 (16 Stat., 279), prečmption... 56, 569
March 3, 1871 (16 Stat., 566) treaty . . . . . . . . 330
March 3, 1871 (16 Stat., 573), sec. 22. . . . . . . 638
April 4, 1872 (17 Stat., 49) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355
April 5, 1872 (17 Stat., 649) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365
June 1, 1872 (17 Stat., 197) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
June 8, 1872 (17 Stat., 333) . . . . ............ 355,692
March 3, 1873 (17 Stat., 605), homestead. . . 355
March 3, 1873 (17 Stat., 607), coal land . . . . . 509
June 22, 1874 (18 Stat., 194) . . . . . . . . . . . . .50, 264, 609
March 3, 1875 (18 Stat., 420), Indian home-
stead, sec. 15...... - - - - - - * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 443
March 3, 1875 (18 Stat., 474), Colorado, sec. 11 222
March 3, 1875 (18 Stat., 511), Wisconsin
Central.--------------------- • * - - - - - - - - - 68
April 21, 1876 (19 Stat., 35), sec. 1....... . 136
Sec. 3.--------. 306
July 31, 1876 (19 Stat., 102). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 579
January 12, 1877 (19 Stat., 221) . . . . . . * * * * * * 222
February 28, 1877 (19 Stat., 254), treaty. . . . 330
Page.
March 3, 1877 (19 Stat., 377)........ tº º ºs º ºs º ºr 49, 542
June 14, 1878 (20 Stat., 113), sec. 1......... 681
Sec. 2.-------- 302
Sec. 3.-------- 268
June 3, 1878 (20 Stat., 89) ---...---......... 47,271
May 14, 1880 (21 Stat., 140), sec. 1 ......... 674
Sec. 2.--------- 141,257,
398, 413, 562, 585
Sec. 3 - - - - - - - - - 431
May 28, 1880 (21 Stat., 143).----. . . . ..... 23, 36,602
June 15, 1880 (21 Stat., 237), sec. 2. . . . . . . . . 111, 129,
392, 410, 588,678
June 16, 1880 (21 Stat., 287) ...... * * * * * - - - - 12, 554
January 13, i881 (21 Stat , 315) ...... . . . . . 437
March 28, 1882 (22 Stat., 36). -- . . . . . . . . . . . . 563
March 3, 1883 (22 Stat., 487) - - - - - - - - -..... 141
July 4, 1884 (23 Stat., 89).................. 4
July 5, 1884 (23 Stat., 103).--............. 489, 602
February 8, 1887 (24 Stat., 391).secs.2 and 4 637
March 3, 1887 (24 Stat., 556). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29, 50,
54, 166, 568, 576,609, 610
March 3, 1887 (24 Stat., 556), sec. 3. . . . . . . . 264, 307
April 30, 1888 (25 Stat., 94), treaty - - -...-. 330
May 14, 1888 (25 Stat.,622), joint resolution. 351
June 16,1888 (25 Stat.,626), joint resolution. 351
August 13, 1888 (25 Stat., 439) . . . . . . ...... 437
January 14, 1889 (25 Stat., 642) ... . . . . . . . . . 3
February 13, 1889 (25 Stat., 668) town site
of Flagstaff --------------------------- 348
February 22, 1889 (25 Stat., 676) ...... . . . . 365
March 2, 1889 (25 Stat., 850), forfeiture of
Wagonroad grant----------------------- 456
March 2,1889 (25 Stat., 854), homestead, etc. 79, 192,
315
Sec. 2.--------. 634
Sec. 5 ---------- 78, 681
Sec. 6.--------. 661
Sec. 7. -----. 221, 301, 596
March 2, 1889 (25 Stat., 888), Sioux lands . 562
March 2, 1889 (25 Stat., 888), sec. 21 - - - - - - - 328
March 2, 1889 (25 Stat., 939), surveys . . . . . 578
March 2, 1889 (25 Stat., 1004), Oklahoma. . 666
March 2, 1889 (25 Stat., 1008), forfeiture of
railroad grant. ----- --------------. . . . 29
May 2, 1890 (26 Stat.), Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . 605, 668
Sec. 22 ------------. 673
May 14, 1890 (26 Stat.), Oklahoma town site 604, 666
REVISED STATUTES CITED AND CONSTEUTED.
VOLUME 1.
Page.
Section 1768. ----------------------------- 548
Section 1946.----------------------------- 633
Section 1992.----------------------------. 491
Section 2025. --...--. • * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 109
Section 2165. ----------------------------- 83
Section 2172. ----------------------------. 66
Section 2238-----------------------...----- 31, 518
Section 2239.--------------------------... 518
Section 2258-----------------------.. - - - - - 457
Section 2259. ----------------- gº an e s m * * * * 436, 443, 491
May 26, 1890 (26 Stat.), amending 2294, R. S. 687
Page.
Section 2260. ----------------------------- 462, 536
Section 2261----------------------- . . . .436, 443, 480
Section 2262...----------------- 408,409, 453, 482, 536
Section 2263. --------. --------------- - - 453, 493
Section 2264. --------------------- - - - - - - - 459
Section 2265. --...-----------------. 383, 416, 432,497
Section 2266. ----------------------------- 416
Section 2267. --.......... tº w e º 'º e º gº tº s e º a sº * * * 488, 497
Section 2271. ----------------------------- 364
Section 2274. --------------------------- tº - 414
Section 2275. --....... * = * * * * * * * * * * * * * ~ * * * * 363
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
59
Page.
Section 2277. ----- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 534
Section 2281. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 362,382
Section 2282. --------- s ºr as sº e º s m = * * * * * * * * * * * 384
Seetion 2287. ----------------------------- 73
Section 2289. --...----------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 38,384
Section 2290- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 31,363
Section 2291----------------------------- 31, 65, 637
Section 2292. ------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 42, 65, 88
Section 2293. ----------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 363
Section 2297. ---------------- * * * * * * * * * * * * * 32
Section 2301. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - tº e < * * * * * * * * * * 101
Section 2308. --------------- e s sº º º is ſº º ºs is is sº as is 98, 362
Section 2318. ------------------- as sº gº tº gº tº s sº is tº 553, 560
Section 2319.----------------------- - - - - - - 551, 560
Section 2320. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 569
Section 2322. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - s = º ºs º º 558
Section 2323 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 584
Section 2324- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 544
Section 2325. --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 544, 572, 587, 592
Section 2326. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - = e º s s = e s = * * * 586, 595
Section 2328. --...-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 561
Section 2333.----------------------------- 550, 578
Section 2337. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 557
Section 2347 et seq.--...-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 540
Section 2362. --...----...-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 528, 529
Section 2368. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 517
Section 2372.----------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 517
Section 2382. --...------------------------- 502
Section 2383. --...------------------ tº 9 sº gº tº tº ºt 502
Section 2386. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 558
Sectiolu 2387. --------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 503
Section 2392. ----------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 558
Section 2395. --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 325
Section 2401. --...-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 308
Section 2402. --...-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 308
Section 2403. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 308, 534
Section 2414. --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3
Section 2450------------------ - - - - - - - - - - - - 411
Section 2457 ----------- * = a, as s m = n = = * * * * * * * * * 79,411
Section 2482 ----------------------------- 506
Section 2488 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . -- - - - - - - 312
Section 3617 ---------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 521
Section 3679. ----------------------------- 538
Section 5595. ------------------- as e s tº gº tº e º ºn tº 418
Section 5596-------...-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 418
VOLUME 2.
Section 243. ----------------------------- g 109
Section 244------------------------------- 109
Section 452------ tº e ºs e º sº gº is s = ºs ºn tº * * * * * * * * * 105,109,314
Section 1046.----------------------------- 830
Section 1778. ----------------------------- 213
Section 1907 ------------------------------ 209
Section 2165. ----------------------------- l95
Section 2167.----------------------------- 195, 612
Section 2168,----------------------------- 101, 611
Section 2170.------------------------ - - - - - 252
Section 2172.---------- tº e º ºn sº º ºs e s se s is sº * * * * * is 611, 612
Section 2238.---------------------. 662, 663, 666, 667
Section 2239------------------------------ 663
Section 2242----- tº e s as ºn sº º ºs e s = s. sº a s as e º e * is sº tº º ºs 666
Section 2257.----------------------------- 604
Section 2258.----------------------------- 604, 635
Sectiou 2259.-------------------------- 131,599, 855
Section 2260. ---------- tº s = sº nº ºn e º ºs ºs s = * * * * 579, 618,685
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section 2298------------------------------ 130
Section 2301------------------------------ 72
Section 2304---------------------------- 31, 125, 130.
Section 2305-----------------------. 91, 107, 108, 148
Section 2306--------------------------- 131, 236, 238.
Section 2307---------------------------. 31, 180, 241
Section 2309.----------------------------- 215,
Section 2313-----------------------------. 131
Section 2319.----------------------------- 742
Section 2320-----------------------------. 749
Section 2322. ----------------------------- 748
Section 2324------------------------------ 748, 767
Section 2325....... ----- a g º is as us is 698,708, 709,749, 758.
Section 2326-----------------------------. 699, 701
705, 706, 707, 708, 710, 723, 725,749, 751
Section 2329.----------------------------. 713, 764
Section 2330------------------------------ 713, 764
Section 2331------------------------------ 764
Section 2334------------------------------ 773
Section 2336.--------------, -------------- 737
Section 2337------------------------------ 755
Section 2341------------------------------ 715.
Section 2342.----------------------------- 713, 715
Section 2347-------------...--------------- 731
Section 2350...... ------ gº e s is a s sº s sº º sº is a • * * * * 729,
Section 2356.----------------------------. 658, 689
Section 2357....... ----. ſº tº a E & E * * *s tº gº tº g º ºs e s as 681
Section 2362.----------------------------- 686, 691
Section 2364----------------------- 603,606, 608, 676.
Section 2366.----------------------------. 658
Section 2367-----------------------------. 461
Section 2382...... s tº a s = tº º e s & a dº sº º te s is is s a tº a s a 628
Section 2389.------------------------. . . . 604.
Section 2395. --------------------------. 88, 198, 849.
Section 2396.----------------------------. 461
Section 2400-----------------------------. 373
Section 2401----------------------------- 465.
Section 2403. ----------------------------. 465.
Section 2447-----------------------------. 365
Section 2449.----------------------------. 457, 496.
Section 2455. -------------------------- 242, 603, 608.
Section 2457. --------------------, -------- 80
Section 2596..... gº as ºs º is as º ºs & e º is ſº tº tº ſº tº e º ſº e º sº gº tº 162:
Section 5013.----------------------------. 681
Section 5182. ----------------------------. 658
Section 5481. ------------ tº º ºs ºs s an e º ºs e º ºs e e s m is 666.
Section 5596.----------------------------- 604,609.
Page.
2261------------------------------ 854
2262.------------------- 559, 559, 622,779, 78
2263--------- as a e s is a e s is a e s = * * * * * * * * 782
2265--------------------------- 578, 855, 858
2266.----------------------------- 578
2267------------------------------ 855
2272------------------------------ 856.
2273--------------------------- 45, 575, 631
2274. ----------------...... 104, 131, 150, 588
2277------------------------------ 599.
2279.----------------------------- 131
2283------------------------------ 131
2287--------------------------- 107, 108,132
2289--------------------- 82, 97,112, 130,639
2290------------------------------ 53, 55
2291-------------------- 77, 84, 87, 91, 99, 147
2292------------------------------ 75, 98.
2294------------. 90, 93, 123, 207,209, 223,504
2297 . . . .29, 40, 48, 52, 58,70,151, 166,289,619
60
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
VOLUME 3.
Page.
Section 453------------------------------- 476, 552
Section 2122. ----------------------------. 425
Section 2123..... º e s - as sº tº s = * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 425
Section 2238..... tº ºs e º e s ∈ s m ºn e s is as tº s a s - - - * * * * 126
Section 2258.-------------------------. 172,282,358
Section 2259.---------------- g s m as sº me • - - - 272,298, 463
Section 2260.................... 56, 273,437, 500,518
Section 2261------------------------------ 258
Section 2262.-------------------- 24, 96, 154, 298, 519
Section 2263. ------------------------ 25,97,298,463
Section 2264. --------------------------. 46, 118, 272
Section 2265. ----------------------------- 118, 282
Section 2267. ----------------------------- 434
Section 2269.----------------------- - - - - - - 274, 545
Section 2271. ------. ---------------------- 442
Section 2272. ---------------------------- 271
Section 2273.----------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - 51, 433
Section 2274------------------------------ 284, 610
Section 2275. ------------------ - - - - - - - - - - - 230, 383
Section 2289. -------------------------. 230, 274,284
Section 2290 ------------------------------ 19
Section 2291. - - - - ---------------------- 141, 466, 506
Section 2293------------------. ----------- 448, 481
Section 2294. ----------------------------- 131
Section 2297. ---------------------------- 19, 22, 568
Section 2301. --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 49, 96, 154, 298,384,462
Section 2304. ----------------------. 18, 213,281, 509
Section 2305- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 141, 583
Section 2306 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 39, 395, 510
Section 2307------------------------------ 395
Section 2308. --------------------------- - 141, 446
Section 2309.----------------------------- 18, 213
Section 2318. ------------- - - - - - = * * * * - - - - - * 173
Section 2319.----------------------------- 116
Section 2320. ----------------------------- 12
Section 2822 ------------------------------ 540
Section 2324.----------------------------- 267
Section 2326-------------------------- ... - . 150, 423
Section 2329. ----------------------------. 117
$ection 2330. --------------------------- - * 238
Section 2333 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 388
Section 2334. --...--...- is $ e º ſº tº a sm is a s = * * * * * * * 115
Section 2337- - - - - - - - - - - - - & = < * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 387
Section 2356.----------------------------. 427
Section 2357. ----------------------------- 427, 477
Section 2360----------------------------, - 427
Section 2364. ------------------------. . . . . 159, 556
Section 2380----------------------------, - 433
Section 2387---------------------------. 13, 358, 433
Section 2389. ----------------------------- 359
Section 2393-------------...------------ ... - e. 358
Section 2401. --... tº tº º º tº e º 'º e - e º sº a s = * * * * * 326,332, 350
Section 2402....... tº º a tº e º E → * * * * * * * * * * * * 326,332, 350
Section 2403.-------------------------. 326,332, 350
Section 2449. -----------------------. . . . . . 498
Section 2450. ------. . . . . . . . . .------------- 141
Section 2451. -------...-------------------- 141
Section 2455. ----------------------------. 149
Section 2457-----------------------------. 190
Section 2482. -------...----...---------. 396, 572, 583
Section 2483.----------------------------. 572
Section 2484.--------------------------. . . 396, 572
Section 2488. ----------------------------- 522
Section 3478...... - - - - º e e º 'º - • * * * * * * * * * * tº º e 114
ſ
VOLUME 4.
Page.
Section 190. ------------------------------ 179
Section 453. ------------------------ ------ 104
Section 456.------------------------------ 270
Section 1059.----------------------------- 6
Section 1063.----------------------------- 6
Section 1093. ----------------------------- 6
Section 1946.----------------------------- 98
Section 2165. ----------------------------- 107
Section 2172. ----------------------------- 116
Section 2323.------------------------...-- 270
Section 2259.-------...----- 72, 140, 189, 199, 211, 515
Section 2260. ----------------------------- 199, 432
Section 2261------------------------------ 10, 189
Section 2262.--... tº º e s = s. s m = * * * * * ºn s e s = * * * * * 211
Section 2265. ----------------------------- 388
Section 2269. - ....... tº ſº e º ºs ºs * - - - - - - - - - - - - * * 140
Section 2271-------------------------...--- 157
Section 2273. ----------------------------- 508
Section 2274.-----... ſº tº tº a s sº as sº º sº ºn as us w = a a ºn tº sº º 28, 520
Section 2283....... º e º ºs º ºs º is a sm as a m as as a m = - s e º s 340
Section 2289.------------------------.. ‘. . . 465, 564
Section 2290.------------------------...--. 435, 465
Section 2291-------------------------...--. 211,434
Section 2297-------...-- tº m s m an as e e s sº e s - e. 255, 301, 466
Section 2299.------------------------. . . . . 443
Section 2301. - ..... - w is tº º sº is tº ºn m º ºs ºn 78, 146, 211, 349, 442
Section 2304.----------------------------- 78, 400
Section 2305------------------------------ 400
Section 2386. . . . . . . & s us tº ſº ſe tº tº m 'm ºn tº es s sº sº ºn as sº ºr * is e 323
Section 2307....... • * º 'º - w is ºn e º 'º ºn tº sº e º 'º e º ºn e º sº 78
Section 2319.----------------------------- 565
Section 2324. ----------------------------- 221, 374
Section 2325---------------------------. 19, 221, 374
Section 2326-----------------------------. 118, 316
Section 2337. ----------------------------. 214
Section 2847. ----------------------------- 98
Section 2357......... * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 54
Section 2362.----------------------------. 293
Section 2363.----------------------------- 293
Section 2382. ----------------------------. 337
Section 2386.----------------------------. 214
Section 2387. ----------------------------. 213, 541
Section 2387.----------------------------. 54
Section 2392. ----------------------------. 213
Section 2400.----------------------------- 453
Section 2401. - ... tº º tº a º ºs e º 'º º º 'º - is s m sº * * * * * * * * 327
Section 2403. ----------------------------. 327
Section 2447. ----------------------------- 130
Section 2450. ----------------------------. 156
Section 2457. ----------------------------- 156, 350
Section 2476. --------------, -------------- 418
Section 2488. ----------------------------. 371
Section 5440. ----------------------------. 469
Section 5498. ---. tº ºr º ºs º sº s = * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 55
VOLUME, 5.
Section 295....... e - e º º ºs e º ºs º ºs e a sº a s sº sº e º sº ºn a s 240
Section 409.--...----------- tº - - - - - - tº e º e º - tº º ºs 240
Section 441------------------------------- 494
Section 453---------------------------. 493, 573, 673
Section 463------------------------------- 525
Section 465....... * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 524
Section 720---------------------- º gº º ſº e º ºr e ºs 481
Section 997. -------------------------- tº º tº º 113
Section 1757.--------, -------------------- 333
DIGEST OF LAND HD ECISIONS.
61
Page
Section 2238. ------- tº tº º L is tº * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 577, 698
Section 2239------------------------------ 578
Section 2242. ----------- tº gº tº gº tº tº s is gº tº s s is as sº sº ºn sm 580
Section 2259.------- sº e = * * * * * * * * = = = * ~ * * * * * * 538. 633
Section 2260.----------------------------- 413
Section 2261------------------------------ 537, 645
Section 2264------------------------------ 474
Section 2265 ---------------------- 189,250,625, 633
Section 2267. ----------------------------- 530
Section 2269.----- tº gº ºs º ºs e s m = * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 307
Section 2275. ----------------------- •----- 545
Section 2276..... ge gº º gº gº tº dº sº tº tº e ∈ - - - - - - - - - - - - - 545
Section 2283. ----------------------------- 310
Section 2289.------------------- 95, 124, 172, 197,683
Section 2291. --------------------- - - - - - - - 197
Section 2294--------------------------. 118, 249,395
Section 2301. ----------------------------- 95,676
Section 2304--------------------------- 134,207, 290
Section 2305---------------------- - - - - - - - - 209,674
Section 2306-------------------- 10, 125,264,290,319
Section 2307. ----------------------------- 264
Section 2319.- ..... gº gº tº s is sº sº me º s = * * * * * * * * * * * * 257
Section 2320------------------------------ 703
Section 2322.----------------------------- 257
Section 2324------------------------------ 25, 200
Section 2325.----------------------------- 25, 200
Section 2331. ----------------------------- 200
Section 2384-----, ------------------------ 202
Section 2337.----------------------------- 190, 513
Section 2339. ----------------------------- 191
Section 2340. ----------------------------- 191
Section 2347. ----------------------------- 126, 225
Section 2348. ----------------------------. 225
Section 2350------------------------------ 225
Section 2354. ----------------------------- 30
Section 2357. ----------------------------- 270, 709
Section 2362.----------------------------- 115, 319
Section 2364. ----------------------------- 270
Section 2380------------------------------ 265
Section 2381. ---------------- ------------ 265
Section 2382. -------------------------- - - - 56, 265
Section 2383------------------------------ 265
Section 2384------------------------------ 265
Section 2385. ----------------------------- 265
Section 2486.---------------- tº º ºr e º 'º a g º 'º gº tº tº 265
Section 2387- - - - -------------------------- 265
Section 2388. ---------------- tº º ºs e º is sº sº º sm am sº tº 265
Section 2389.----------------------------- 265
Section 2457.----------------------------- 514
Section 2478.----------------------------- 573, 673
Section 2482. -------- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * = 638
Section 2488. ----------------------------- 37, 100
Section 2490.----------------------------- 102
Section 3220. ----------------------------- 574
Section 3229. ----------------------------- 240
Section 3478. ----------------------------- 338, 508
Section 3469. --...- dº e is tº sº e º 'º s º ºs e s m = ** = s. sº sº e s is 240
Section 3479.----------------------------- 338
Section 5498. ----------------------------- 337
"WOLUME 6.
Section 1946.-----.. tº e º º Lº º º ſº gº tº gº tº º sº gº tº º º ſº tº tº º 74
Section 1947. ----------------------------- 74
Section 2165-----------------------------. 757
Section 2258----------------- tº gº gº tº tº us wº sº tº s 333,522,749
Page.
Section 2259.------------- ---------------- 602
Section 2260------------------- 287, 407,422,767,792
Section 2261-.......... 104, 298, 407,602,617, 786, 793
Section 2262. -------------------------- 384, 603,749
Section 2263. .... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 420
Section 2265..... tº sº tº gº is tº tº º ſº tº sº tº gº tº º tº ſº tº tº º tº 392,517, 604
Section 2267.......... sº s e º º is as tº e º se e s = e = * * * * 604
Section 2269.--------------------------- 31, 136,671
Section 2274. ----------------------------- 139, 827
Section 2275. ----------------------------. 74, 697
Section 2276-----------------------------. 696,
Section 2283-----------------------------. 601
Section 2287-----------------------------. 106.
Section 2290......... tº s sº e s º is is ºn as as s sº º is is a ºn s = ºr 257
Section 2291------------... 135,142, 361, 516, 573, 671
Section 2292-------------------------...--. t;74
Section 2294.-----------...-----------. 135,257,722
Section 2297--------------------------- 143, 369, 569
Section 2301------------------------. 8, 311, 420, 573
Section 2303.----------------------------- 744
Section 2304.----------------------------. 557
Section 2306------------------------------ 577
Section 2378...--------------------....... 499
Section 2319.--...------------------------- 105
Section 2822-----------------------...----- 319
Section 2325-...... tº gº º ºs º ºs s a 105, 221, 261,547, 580, 647
Section 2326.--------------...------------- 534:
Section 2329------------------------------ 227
Section 2330-----------------------------. 227
Section 2331-----------------------------. 227, 580
Section 2384-----------------------------. 105
Section 2337--------------------------. 261,547, 707
Section 2339------------------------------ 709.
Section 2347- - - -...- ... & º $ tº as tº tº ºn s s as e º s a s 371, 500, 621
Section 2848------------------------------ 500
Section 2350-----------------------------. 372
Section 2357------------------------------ 145, 523
Section 2372..... tº a sº º sº sº º e s is e º 'º º 'º e s m = me e s = e s 644
Section 2389-----------------------------. 676.
Section 2395------------------------------ 696
Section 2401------------------------------ 538
Section 2402..... tº º sº sº tº sº e s m = m = * * * * * * * * * = as ºn s 538
Section 2447-----------------------------. 149
Section 2456.----------------------------- 314
Section 2488------------------------------ 684
VOLUME 7.
Section 1946. --------------------------- tº º 549
Section 2165..... tº ſº tº E tº º tº ſº tº ſº tº tº e º 'º a tº wº we gº tº º ºs a s 59
Section 2260---------------. 69, 195, 290,436,472,513
Section 2261----------------- 31, 40,261,290, 317, 396
Section 2262.----------------------------- 34
Section 2263------------------------------ 89
Section 2265------------------------------ 539
Section 2274---------------------------- -- 3.
Section 2283-----------------------------. 251
Section 2291.----- tº gº º e s sº ºn m = nº - tº fl º ºs ºº e º ºr a sm gº tº º 362
Section 2298------------------------------ 223
Section 2294------------------------------ 19, 247
Section 2301..... e as we we e s sº e º as a s = * * * * * 177, 201,233,477
Section 2304------------------------------ 288, 565
Section 2305------------------------------ 362
Section 2306...... tº º gº gº º º tº e º º ſº tº e º tº º is º º sº s 237,287,565
Section 2307. ----------------------------- 34,547
Section 2309.--...- sº º sº ºn tº º º ſº tº º 'º - ſº º º º º ſº tº º sº e s = 204
62
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
Page
Section 2319.----...--...... tº - tº tº ſº - - - as tº º 7
Section 2324.----------...----------------. 508
Section 2325.-------------------------. 393, 478, 555
Section 2326.--------------------...----. 84, 336, 416
Section 2327.------------------- à = * * * * * * * * 416
Section 2331. ----------------------------- 391
Section 2337. --...------------------------- 557
Section 2847. . .----------------...--------- 172,422
Section 2350. ------------------------...--. 423
Section 2351-----------------------------. 175
Section 2357. ----------------------------- 175, 209
Section 2362. - ........ * * * * * * * * * * * * s is sº e º sº a m = * 99, 297
Section 2369. ----------------------------- 156
Section 2371. ----------------------------- 156
Section 2372.----------------------------. 155
Section 2389. -------------------------...--. 143
Section 2479.----------------------------- 243
Section 2483.----------------------------- 243
VOLUME 8.
Section 441------------------------------- 275
Section 453. ----------------- * * * * * * * * * * * * * 275
Section 2165------------------------...--. 290
Section 2167. ----------------------------. 60
Section 2168------------------------------ 60, 289
Section 2172. ----------------------------- 60
Section 2259--------------------------. 433, 438, 503
Section 2260..... * = • * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 132,367, 502
Section 2262.---------------- * * * * * * * * * * * * * 272
Section 2263-----------------------------. 27
Section 2264-----------------------------. 347
Section 2265. --, -------------------... .347, 394, 417
Section 2267-----------------------------. 394, 417
Section 2268. --------------------. ---...--. 572
Section 2269.----------------------------. 405, 455
Section 2273------------------------------ 274
Section 2274. ------------------------...--. 536
Section 2289.----------------------------- 289
Section 2291 - - - - - - - - - - - -----. 45, 54, 246, 286, 551, 566
Section 2292. . . . . ------------------------. 455
Section 2294. --...------. . . . . . . . . . . . ------. 1, 337
Section 2301-----------------------. 45, 336, 566,613
Section 2308. -- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .----------- 156, 514
Section 2304. --...--------------------...--. 200, 337
Section 2305------------------------------ 228, 337
Section 2306-----------------------------. 235, 337
Section 2307-----------------------------. 337
Section 2319.------------------. -- - - - - - - - - 197
Section 2324. ------...--------------. -----. 388, 505
Section 2325..........--------. 103, 123,223,459, 506
Section 2326-----------------------------. 431
Section 2334. ----------------------------- I03
Section 2336. ----------................... 361
Section 2337 ------------------------...--. 196
Section 2339.----------------------...----. 113
Section 2348......... tº e = n = s. s is a ºn s s s is s a sº as a s us 140
Section 2350. ----------------------------. 142
Section 2355. ----------------------------- 77
Section 2356-------------------...--...----. 77
Section 2357.....--------...-...--...--...-. 368
Section 2362.----------..............----. 463, 623
Section 2367. --------------------...------. 431
Section 2369......... * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 305
Section 2370......... * * * * * * * * * * * * * e º a º e s s sº 305
Section 2387....... tº º tº * * * * * * * * * * * * * e e º ºn s m a. 337, 425
Page.
Section 2388.----------.... tº º ºs º º sº º - ------ 337, 425
Section 2411.-----------...-- • e º gº tº e - ºr s us is tº e 254
Section 2450....... * * * * * * * * * * a s = e s • * * * * * * * 91
Section 2455.----------------............. 421
Section 2456.-----------------............ 183
Section 2457.----------........... * - * * * * sº * 9]
Section 2478----------------....... - - - - ſº tº sº. 91
Section 2479. . . . . . . . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 78
Section 2481.-----------------............ 52
Section 2484.---------------------........ 387
VOLUME 9.
Section 449.------...--...--........ tº - * * * s ºr 14
Section 1946.----------------............. 554
Section 2165.---------------------...----. 587
Section 2237.-----------...---------. tº * * * * * * 61
Section 2288. ----------------...--......... 61
Section 2258. ------------------------..... 411, 533
Section 2259.--------------------...-..... 43
Section 2260................... 160,463, 512,605, 619
Section 2261. . . . . . • * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * - - - - - - - - 85
Section 2262.---...---- * * * * * * * * * = m e ºs s m = e e e 160
Section 2263----------------..... * & © - m s m ms as 319
Section 2264. --...----------- tº e º 'º - e - & a s as s = º 43
Section 2265. ----------------------....... 43,358
Section 2266. ---...---...-- * = * * * * m is nº sº, e s e = = 174
Section 2269.----------------------....... 452
Section 2275. ------------------........... 554
Section 2281-----------------------------. 404, 425
Section 2289. ---------------------. 144, 389, 534, 606
Section 2290.----------------------------- 45, 210
Section 2291--------------------------- 150, 268,600
Section 2292.--------------------.. * * * * * * * * 268
Section 2294. --------------------...--...-. 20, 209
Section 2296.-------------------- & tº e - - a e s as 600
Section 2297. ----------------------------- 255, 530
Section 2301-----------------------....... 2
Section 2306.----------------------------- 389
Section 2325......... * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * = 538, 57.1
Section 2326----------------------...----- 565
Section 2330. ----------------------------- 144
Section 2333.----------------------------- 29
Section 2337-----------------------------. 201, 460
Section 2339-----------------------------. 202
Section 2847.----------------------------- 17
Section 2848------------------------------ 15
Section 2357. ---.. - - - * = tº º ºr * - - - tº as s as s = - - - e s a 272, 429
Section 236?------------------------------ 51
Section 2364. ------------------........... 215
Section 2395.----------------------------. 14
Section 2450-----------------------...----- 231
Section 2455. ----------------------------. 529
Section 3831------------------------ - * * e s s 551
WOL. 10.
Section 449------------------------------. 99
Section 452------------------------------- 97
Section 453. -----------------------------. 99
Section 914. ------------------------------ 240
Section 2079. --------...-------- º tº at º ºr - - a sº a s 330
Section 2238. ----------------------------. 333
Section 2258. ----------------------------. 204, 650
Section 2259. ----------------------------. 628
Section 2260--------------. 103, 117, 208,326,447, 461
Section 2262....... * * * * * * * * * - º Aº nº ſº tº e º 'º - * * * * 551, 635
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
Page.
$ection 2263. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 431 Section 2333------------------------------
Section 2264. . -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 388,431, 652 Section 2337.-----------------------------
Section 2265... --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------ 387, 431, 647 Section 2339.-----------------------------
Section 2267. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 216, 614, 630,647 | Section 2340--------------------- e e s a sm • * * *
Section 2274 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 234 Section 2347. -----------------------------
Section 2289 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 100, 423. 488, 579, 635, 650 Section 2349..............................
Section 2291. --------------------- 209, 275, 333, 543 Section 2350. -------------------------. 162
Section 2292. ----------------------------- 543 | Section 2351.-----------------------------
Section 2294------------------------------ 687 Section 2357.----------------------------.
Section 2297. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 113,643, 691 Section 2387. --..... ---...-...--...-- - - - - - -
Section 2301. ----------------------------- 209, 333 | Section 2388. --...--...--...--...--- tº dº sº tº º e - e tº
Section 2305. - - - - - - - cº e s as s s as as * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 531 Seetion 2389. -----------------------------
Section 2306. -------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 355, 692 | Section 2392. -...-------------------------
Section 2307 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 355, 424,531, 548 || Section 2395................ tº tº e º ſº tº º ºs tº ſº ºn tº * *
Section 2318. ----------------------------- 204 Section 2414. -----------------------------
Section 2319. - - - - - - ----------------------- 641 Section 2423. --........... - - - - - e º ºs e º 'º e s - sº ºn
Section 2321------------------------------ 642 Section 2455.----...-...--........ tº tº º - - - - - e.
Section 2324. ---------------- & sº e º sº as a s = • * * * 158, 534 Section 2457-----------------------------.
Section 2325 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 159,205,270,657 Section 2479.--...........................
Section 2326. ---------------------. 185, 194, 205, 535 Section 2482. --.................... --.....
Section 2332.... -- * -, - tº E tº ſº tº º * - - - - e º sº tº & º ºs º - º 202 Section 2484------------------------------
TABLES OF CIRCUILAIRS AND INSTRUCTIONS.
WOLUME 1.
Page.
September 5, 1881.-Deposit for survey .. 665
October 24, 1881. –Timber trespass....... 701
February 1, 1882.-Timber culture ------. 638
May 9, 1882.-Mining claim, adverse pro-
ceedings ---------------------- - - - - - - - - - 685
June 16, 1882.-Bonds for United States
deputy SliTVey'Ors. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 669
June 30, 1882.-Timber cutting. ---------- 697
July 31, 1882.-Sale of coal land. --...----. 587
September 19, 1882.-Protection of timber. 696
September 22, 1882.-Patent for placer
claim - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 685
October 12, 1882.-Timber cutting, mes-
quite.---------- • * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 695
October 25, 1882.-Delivery of patent .... 638
November 16, 1882.-Survey of milling
claim ---------------- • * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 693
December 9, 1882.-Placer claim ; area;
expenditure. ----------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 694
19ecember 15, 1882. –Homestead declara-
tory statement. ------------------------ 648
December 20, 1882.—Timber-culture con-
test8. --------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 651
February 13, 1883.--Timber-culture con-
tests ----------------------------------- 652
February 13, 1883. —Soldiers' homestead
entries ------------------------------.. 654
March 1, 1883.—Timber trespass, measure
of damages ------------ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 695
March 3, 1883.−Timber cutting for rail-
road construction.---------------- * - - - - - 699
March 19, 1883.-Correction of duplicate
plats.---------------------------------- 670
March 20, 1883.—General circular ........ 656
April 5, 1883.−Unlawful inclosures ...... 684
April 9, 1883.-Alabama lands; coal and
iron -------------- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * e s m e º 'º - º 655 |
July 9, 1883.−Unlawful inclosures ..... º “m
VOLUME 2.
April 5, 1883.−Unlawful inclosure of pub-
lic land---------------------------------
May 22, 1883.—Entries and filings on in-
demnity lands ------------------------
June 8, 1883.-Mining claims.............
June 11, 1883.—Place for taking testimony
July 20, 1883.−Accounts and fees
July 23, 1883. –Report on appeals
August 6, 1883.−Description of lands in
certificates and receipts...... . . . . . .....
August 28, 1883.-Entry by officer or clerk
September 17, 1883.—Final proof
September 28, 1883. – Examination of rec-
* * * * * * * * *
November 10, 1883.−Manner of closing
SuTVey - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
December 1, 1883.—Fees and commissions
on canceled entries .............----...
December 22, 1883.-Final proof; adverse
January 28, 1884.—Fees of local officers...
January 30, 1884.—Rates of advertising..
January 31, 1884.—Qualifications of entry-
* * * * * * * * * E.
March 4, 1884.—Place for taking testimony
March 22, 1884.—Place of taking testimony
April 7, 1884.—Fees of local officers.-----
April 18, 1884.—Abstracts from records..
May 8, 1884.—Hearings on special agents'
reports. --...---- g is a sm is e e s m e º 'º e s s e s is º, º ºs e º e
540
162
509, 539
539
542, 652
348, 667
348
208, 348
204
391
357
357
615
299
46
446
46
Page.
684
640
517
725
231
662
205
197
313
199
222
470
660
595
665
205
195
224
234
204
235
655
807
64
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
VOLUME 3.
CIRCULARS:
September 15, 1883.—Deposits for survey.
May 31, 1884.—Indian occupants....... --.
July 9, 1884,-Penalty envelopes .........
July 31, 1884.—Final proof.----------...--
August 23, 1884.—Indian homesteads. ...-
August 29, 1884.—Right of appeal . . . . . . . .
September 3, 1884.—Registered mail......
September 17, 1884–Official telegrams...
September 18, 1884.—Attorneys before the
Department---------...-----------------
September 24, 1884.—Official telegrams ...
October 3, 1884.—Transcribing testimony.
October 4, 1884.—Transcribing testimony.
October 23, 1884.—Second entries and fil-
December 4, 1884 —Mining claim, survey.
December 10, 1884.—Final proof. . . . . . . ...
February 10, 1885.-Official telegrams ....
May 11, 1885.-Mining claim, survey......
May 27, 1885. —Accounts of special agents.
June 4, 1885.-Expired prečmption filings.
June 24, 1885. – Deposit survey. . . . . . . . . . .
June 26, 1885. —Entry in excess of quarter
Section------- • * * * * s s s is ºn tº e º sº º ºs º a tº e = * * * * *
INSTRUCTIONS:
April 3, 1884.—Final proof.----- - - - - - - - - -.
July 23, 1884.—Transcribing testimony. . .
August 4, 1884.—Final proof fees. . . . . . . . .
August 19, 1884.—Timber proof . . . . . . . . . .
September 2, 1884.—Transcribing testi-
In ODY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
September 4, 1884.—Applications and affi-
September 17, 1884.—Final proof. . . . . . . . . .
September 17, 1884.—Special agents . . . . . .
September 22, 1884.—Rejected applica-
tions. --. - - - - - - - - * *
September 22, 1884.—As to contests ... ...
September 22, 1884.—Contest; testimony.
September 22, 1884.—Protest cases, testi-
In ODY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
October 6, 1884.—Final proof.............
October 11, 1884.—Final proof............
October 15, 1884.—Canceled warrants.....
October 30, 1884.—Final proof . . ....... --.
October 30, 1884.—Final proof . - - - - - - - - - - -
November 12, 1884.—Deposit survey . . . . .
November 18, 1884.—Final proof; pay-
sº º sº - - - - - e s = ºs e = * * * - - - -
Page.
350
371
6
52
91
99
108
111
113
123
132
160
161
140
154
541
246
542
575
576
599
606
211
105
58
84
107
108
112
113
119
120
121
122
141
145
155
155
184
188
Page.
479
534
580
582
605
79
128
75
503
80
150
220
374
289
297
473
488
521
545
15
76
33
51
202
337
165
149
128
129
569
178
178
|00
198
December 11, 1884.—Final proof; protest.
December 22, 1884,-Official correspond.
enC6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
January 5, 1885.—Final proof . . . . . . . . . . . .
January 30, 1885.-Amendment of entries.
January 30, 1885.-Deposits for survey...
March 9, 1885.—Final proof . . . . . . . . ......
March 16, 1885.-Soldiers' additional......
195
196
220
247
298
471
348
484
472
April 11, 1885.—Final proof..............
May 8, 1885.—Santee Sioux Reservation..
June 4, 1885.-Indian homesteads ..... --.
June 5, 1885.-Homestead residence ......
June 26, 1885.-Fee and commissions.....
WOLUME 4.
CIRCULARs.
July 23, 1885.—Ilıdemnity school selec-
tions -----------------------...--...--.
July 30, 1885.-Mineral applications. ---..
July 31, 1885.-Hearing on special agent's
August 4, 1885.—Railroad indemnity se-
lections --------------------------------
August 29, 1885.-Railroad right of way..
October 21, 1885.-Attorneys (official or-
December 14, 1885 –Mining regulations. .
December 15, 1885. –Timber lands. --...--.
December 15, 1885.—Final proof. ... . . . . . .
March 30, 1886.-Final proof. - - - - . . . . . . . . .
April 15, 1886.-Survey on deposit........
May 7, 1886.-Timber cutting ............
May 24, 1886.-Amending circular July
31, 1885 ---------------------------------
INSTRUCTIONS.
July 8, 1885. –Forfeited railroad lands in
July 9, 1885.-Double minimum lands ....
July 22, 1885.—Desert land entries. .... --
July 23, 1885.-Desert land entries .......
October 21, 1885.—Township survey......
VOLUME 5.
February 1, 1886.-Attorneys.............
April 30, 1886.-Settlers on restored rail-
road lands.-----------------------------
July 6, 1886.—Hearings on special agents’
reports. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.
July 26, 1886.-Additional homestead . . . .
August 5, 1886.—Timber cutting ....... • *
August 18, 1886.--Accounts - - - - -----...-.
September 23, 1886.-Final proof.........
September 24, 1886.-Bounty land war-
October 13, 1886. Fees of surveyors-gen-
eral ------------------------------------
October 25, 1886.-Post-office address of
applicants -----------------------------
October 28, 1886. Notice of hearings and
decisions. ------------------------------
November 2, 1886.-Final proof blanks...
November 5, 1886.--Town sites (July 9,
1886) -----------------------------------
November 6, 1886.-Accounts ............
December 13, 1886.-Swamp lands........
February 16, 1887.-Mining claims ....... .
February 19, 1887--Final proof.--...----.
March 15, 1887.—Account and fees.......
204
220
265
245
279
468
426
577
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONs.
65
Page. Page.
March 19, 1887.-Attorneys before local | February 13, 1889.—Railroads, act of
offices. . . . . . . . . . .---------------------. 508 March 3, 1887 -----. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 348
March 23, 1887.-School indemnity in Col. March 8, 1889.-Homesteads, etc., act of
orado ---------------------------------- 696 March 2, 1889. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314
April 26, 1887.-Osage trust lands........ 581 | April 1, 1889.-Oklahoma, act of March 2,
April 30, 1887.-Settlers on Northern Kan- 1889.-------------------...------------. 336
sas Railroad lands ..................... 627
June 2, 1887.-Surveys—subdivision of VOLUME 9.
sections --------------------...------. 699
June 6, 1887.-New Orleans and Pacific July 16, 1889.-Timber culture, final proof. 86
Railroad grant ... --------------...----. 686 July 17, 1880.-Final proof rules.......... 123
June 27, 1887.-Desert land entry—final August 5, 1889.-Arid lands.............. 282
proof... --...---------- • * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 708 || August 7, 1889–Accounts............... 229
August 23, 1889.-Desertentry, final proof. 259
VOLUME 6. August 22, 1889.—Timber and stone act,
December 18, 1885.-Report of appeals... 12 final proof.----------------------------. 335
May 21, 1887.-(Approved July 16, 1887.) September 5, 1889.-Timber and stone
Timber and stone act... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 act, final proof.--------------...--...----- 384
June 27, 1887.—(Approved July 12, 1887.) September 29, 1889.—Settler's leave of ab-
Timber culture ---............. . . . . . . . . 280 S6MC6. . . . . . . . . * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 433
July 6, 1887.-Notice of decisions and re- October 4, 1889 –Homestead settlement . 452
port thereon ---...--...-----------------. 12 | November 30, 1889.—Final proof, county
July 29, 1887.-School indemnity.......... 703 judge ---------------------------------- 586
September 6, 1887. – Restoration of rail- December 3, 1889.—Desert entry, final
road indemnity lands ---...--.......... 131 proof.---------------------------------- 672
October 26, 1887.—Indian occupants of December 3, 1889. —Timber culture, final
public land----------------------------- 341 proof----------------------------------. 672
November 19, 1887.-Restoration of rail- December 4, 1889.-Accounts....... . . . . . . 655
road indemnity lands - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 328
November 22, 1887. —Adjustment of rail- VOLUME 10.
Toad grants ---------------- … ** | January 3, 1890–Disposition of records
December 15, 1887.—Restoration of rail- s - e. º
• e in contests dismissed by the local office. 2
road indemnity lands -----------------. 419 - &
* & º January 6, 1890.--Official returns, and let-
December 22, 1887.—Restoration of rail- | from the local office
road indemnity lands; order of Dec. 15, ters rom * … 2
- February 20, 1890.-Surveyors' accounts. . 199.
1887, modified -------------------------- * | March 3, 1890–Equitable adjudication. Sº
VOLUME 7. March 24, 1890.-Sioux Indian lands, act of
November 16, 1839.—Wyoming school March 2, 1889, Sec. 21.----. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328.
lands----------------------------------. 585 March 25, 1890.-Sioux Indian lands...... 562.
May 9, 1890.-Homestead entry; minor
VOLUME 8. heirs. ---------------------------------- 543.
March 24, 1887.-Mining claim..... --...- tº º 505 || May 24, 1890.-Oklahoma town sites...... 604
January 2, 1889.-Final proof. ------. * * * ~ * 3 June 18, 1890.-Oklahoma town sites..... 666
February 11, 1889.—Amendment of en- June 25, 1890.-Entry and final proof;
tries and filings----------- e - sº tº e - ſº tº gº sº tº e º º 187 amendment of section 2294, R. S........ 687
RULES OF PRACTICE CITED AND CONSTRUED.
VOLUME 1. Page.
Page. Rule 41.......... * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * = a as 107
Rule 5. ----------------------------------- 481 | Rule 43...... * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * = a 472
Rule 8------------------------------------ * | Rule 44............................ 117, 118,472, 479
Rule 9.----------------------------------- * Rule 45---------------------------------- 472
Rule 10----------------------------------- *** | Rule 53.----------------.................. 156
Rule 12----------------------------------- 108,299 || Rule 76............................ * * * tº gº tº gº 111
Rule 14---------------------------------. 108 || Rule 83.-----------.......... * * * * * * * * * * * * * 570, 628
Rule 15. ----------------------- * * * * * * * * * * * 106 || Rule 84..... * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 565,628
Rule 17----------------------------------- 479 || Rule 86...... * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * = a, e = e s = 464, 473
Rule 20------------------- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 100, 112 | Rule 88----------------------------------. 110
Rule 33------------------...-- - * * * * * e s e s = e se 132 Rule 94.-------...--........... * * * * * * * * * * * * 110
Rule 35.------------------. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 132,474 Rule 106................ tº º tº a º ºs * * * * * * * * * * ee 120
10464—5
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
VOLUME 2.
Page:
Rule 1......... º º º º is a º ºs e º ºs e s - e is e º as a • * * * * * * 219, 303
Rule 2..... º ºg - e º sº ºn g º ºs º ºs e º 'º e = * * * - e s - e s = e s s as 437
Rule 3.----------------------------------- 57,213
Rule 4. --...--------------- 57, 59, 61,210, 213, 312, 437
Rule 5. -------------------------------. 225, 303, 437
Rule 6.-------------- • * * * * * * * s • * m = * * * * * * * * 303
Rule 7. ----------------------------------. 57, 303
Rule 9.-------------------------------. 227, 229, 230
Rule 10----------------------------------- 63
Rule 12--------------------------. . . . . . . . . 51, 63
Rule 13. ---------------------------------. 230
Rule 14-------------------------------- 229, 230,766
Rule 23--------------------------...------. 235
Rule 35. ---------------------------- 66, 231, 234, 235
Rule 36----------------------------------. 234,235
Rule 41. ---------------------------------- 232, 581
Rule 42... --------------------------------. 581
Rule 44----------------------------------- 387
Rule 47. --------------- tº º is nº is “ sº a s = s. m. a. s. sº ºn as s is 169
Rule 49----------------------------------. 656
Rule 51. ---------------------------------. 656
Rule 53. ----- - “... as a • * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 55, 257, 284
Rule 59. -------- tº ºr tº sº m sº as as a m * * * * * r * * * * * * * * * * 223
Rule 66. ---------------------------------- 278,280
Rule 67----------------------------------. 280
Rule 76- . --------------------------------- 418,845
Rule 77. ---------------------------------. 247
Rule 78-----------------------------, ----- 418
Rule 83. -------------------------------- 68, 419,769
Rule 84------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 68,769
Rule 86.------------------------...----. 375, 715, 719
Rule 87...---- - e º ºs º a tº e º ºs e º 'º s º 'º e º e s sº a º a º e s sº e 71.4
Rule 93. -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - de & - e s is a s = - 612
Rule 102. --------------------------------. 379, 380
WOLUME 3.
Rule 4 ----- - e º e º º • * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * - tº s º - s s sº 142
Rule 6 ----------------------------------- 142
Rule 8. ---------------------- * * * * * * * * * * g s ºf 142
Rule 12 ---------------------------------. 249
Rule 13. ---------------------------------- 529, 592
Rule 14 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • * * * * * * * 140, 250, 326, 592
Rule 15 ---------------------------------. 107. 121
Rule 17 ---------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - 99
Rule 20 ---------------------------------. 592
Rule 22 - - - - - º e º a s m > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 52, 582
Rule 23----------------------------------. 584
I&ule 24 - - - - - - - - - - - {-} - ſº tº - º º & ſº is a ºn s = * * * * * * * * * 584
Rule 35 - - - - - - - - tº e º sº º sº º e s s ºr - a tº a m = * * 112, 145, 194, 333
Rule 37 ------------------- - * * * * s w w tº is sº e s as a 86
Rule 38 - - - - - - - - tº º is e º e º sº as as s m = * * * * * * * * * * * * * 86
Rule 44. ---------------------------------. 184
Rule 47 ---------------------------------. 184, 608
Rule 51 ---------------------------------. 38
Rule 53 ---------------------------------. 209, 434
Rule 56 ----------------- dº w w = a a ºn sº e - a s = n e ºs 52
Rule 66 ---------------------------------. 281
Rule 68 ....... * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 119
Rule 76 ---------------------------------. 597
Rule 77 ........ * - e º sº a s - s s e e s m sº e º 'º - * * * * 104, 234, 540
Rule 79.-------------- tº s tº º tº ſº * * * * * * * * * * s e - 540
Rule 80 ... ... tº e º e º e º ºs e º 'º fº ºn m = s. * * * * * * * * * * * * 540
Rule 86 -------------------- tº º sº m sº dº º a tº e º ºs tº º 135
Bule 87 -------...--...-- & s is º º ºr e º a sº sº e s tº tº ºn E is sº 135
Page.
Rule 93 --------------------------------. 135,250
Pºule 94 :--------------------------------. 135
Rule 95 :--------------------------. G. ºn s - e. 135
Rule 96 ---------------------------------. 135
Pºule 99 -------------------...-...-----... 135
Rule 102 --------------------...---------. 135
Pule 104 -------------------------------. 409, 607
Rule 105 -------------------------...----. 409, 608
Rule 106----------------...--...--...-- 184, 608, 409
WOLUME 4,
Rule 7 ---------------------------------. 541
Rule 10 -------------------------------- 86,440, 537
Rule 12 ---------------------------...- . . .86, 89, 230
Rule 14---------------------------------- 89
Rule 20 ---------------------------------. 207, 377
Rule 22 ----------------------------...--. 207, 386
Rule 23 ...-------------------------------. 203
Rule 24 :--------------------------------- 208
Rule 35 ..... tº e º & tº º ºs s - - sº sº e s is ºn º ºs e = * * * : * * * 91, 440, 541
Rule 41 ---------------------------------. 386
Rule 42. --------------------------------. 541
Rule 47 ---------------------------------. 277, 57.1
Rule 50 ...... * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 246
Rule 51 ..... * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 203
Rule 52 ---------------------------------- 246, 466
Rule 58 ---------------------------------. 466
Rule 54 ---------------------------------. 207
Rule 56 ---------------------------------. 207
Rule 66 ---------------------- * * * * * * * * * * = s. 9
Rule 70 -----------------------. - * * * * * * * * * 234
Rule 76 . ------------- tº gº w tº wº º sº ºn s sº ºn s s as ºn a s = - a 107, 511
Rule 77 ------------- * * * * * * * * * * * * ~ is sº a ºn m º 11, 107,252
Rule 78 :--------------------------------. 252
Rule 81 ------------------- 162,270, 277,285, 314, 559
Rule 82. --...----- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * = r 343, 551, 570
Rule 83. ------------ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 53, 226, 314, 559
Rule 84 .--------------------------. 53, 226, 314, 558
Rule 86 ------------------------------. 226, 244, 551
Rute 87. ----------------------- * * * * * * * * * * 332
Rule 88 ..... * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * as e 343, 551
Rule 90 ---------------------------------. 551
Rule 97 ---------------------------------- 551
Rule 99.--------------------------------. 107
Rule 103. ----------------------------- * - e. 53
Rule 104. -------------------------- * * * * * * 9
Rule 105 ---...---- tº a ºn e s s sº * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * e 9
Rule 106.----------------------------- tº dº e 9
Rule 108 ....... sº sº e s a e º dº e = * * * * * * * * * * * * * - a s 336
Rule 112 ------------------- * - * * * * * * * * * * * * 508
Rule 114. -------------------------. 53, 275, 314, 495
VOLUME 5*
Rule 9 ----------------------------------. 457
Rule 10. --...----.. * e º 'º - tº s º ºs e º ºs e º s ºr a s ge º e º 214
Rule 11 .--------------------------------. 214, 457
Rule 12 ---------- * s a • * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * = a 214
Rule 13 ---------------------------------. 214
Rule 15 ..... - a s gº is e º 'º is sº is a • * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * s 214
Rule 17 ..... tº e is as a gº º sº ºn s is w = * * * * * * * * * tº º tº sº e s a 235
Rule 20 ---------------------------------. 143,649
Rule 35 ... -- tº e º sº º is ºn tº * sº e º sm is º ºr e = * * tº tº tº e º & as ºs º 365
Rule 43 --------------------------- tº º tº º ºs º e 673
Rule 44 ------------------------- * - º ºs s = º ºs ſº 246
Rule 46 ......------- sº e º 'º º ºs ºn tº tº s a sº s m sº us tº s ºn gº tº 246
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
67
- Page.
Rule 48 ----------------------- 212, 246, 448, 585,624
Rule 49 ..... & e º sº a s e s dº e s = e = * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 212
Rule 52 ---------------------------------- 369
Rule 53 ---------------------------------- 369
Rule 66 ---------------------------- ----- 380
Rule 72 -------------------------------- 59, 352,426
Rule 76 ------------------------------- 151,383,412
Rule 81 ---------------------------- 59, 175,252,625
Rule 82. -------------------------- 100, 170,205, 506
Rule 83 ------------------------------- 255, 507, 673
Rule 84------------------------------- 255, 507, 673
Rule 87 ---------------------- tº ºn E (E tº ſº º is nº s is 476, 479
Rule 88 ---...---- tº sº s sº gº tº e º s = sº tº s = s tº s sº e s as as m ºn 112, 158
Rule 90 --------- gº º te e s m = * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 112,252
Rule 92 ---------------------------------- 676
Rule 93 ------------------------------- 170,476, 479
Rule 94 --------- tº gº ºs e º e º s = e º sº ºn tº sº º ºs e s tº sº s ºr e wº 476, 479
Rule 95 ...... tº º ºs º ºs º ºs º ºs ºs as ſº º º sº tº s = * * * * * * * * * * 479
Rule 96 - - - - - tº dº ſº e º ſº º sº º sº us s sº sº º ºs º ºr e º ºs s as sº º ºs e º º 479
Rule 105 ..... sº, º gº ºn e º sº tº tº s m is as ºr º e s as a sº º is ºn tº e = * * 480
Rule 108 --------------------------------- 401
Rule 112 - - - - - - - - * = º ºs ºs e = * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 422
Rule 114 - - - - - - - - gº ºs e º is sº e º ºs e º ºs º ºs ºn s e s as sº e º º ºs is 235
VOLUME 6.
Rule 1 ----------------------------------- 284
Rule 9 ----------------------------------- 552
Rule 10 ---------------------------------- 552
Rule 11 ---------------------------------- 670
Rule 14----- gº tº º e º m º ºs º s = * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 269
Rule 15 ---------------------------------- 670
Rule 44 ---------------------------------- 765
Rule 48 ---------------------------. 99, 359, 391, 426
Rule 52 ---------------------------- * * * * * * 12
Rule 54 ---------------------------------- 600, 765
Rule 55 ---------------------------------- 600
Rule 57 (Rules of 1880).......... tº s e º ſº se sº tº e 661
Rule 58 ------------ sº gº s tº gº tº s sº sº as ºn is sº as º e º is a sº tº º 599
Rule 76 --------- e = * * * * * * * * * * sº sº sº e º ºn * * * * * * * * * , 244, 782
Rule 81 ---------------------------------- 772, 804
Rule 82 ----------- tº º ſº tº # tº º ſº tº s tº sº * is tº e º ºs ºs º ºs e e 315
Rule 86 --------- tº ºn tº sº se tº sº e º ºs e º is us tº m is tº º we tº e º us us 124, 240
Rule 87 ------------- & tº sº º sº is is sº ºn a s e º ºs º ºs º e º ºs ºs 240
tule 88 ---------------------------------- 315
Rule 90 ---------------------------------- 315
Rule 97 ---------------------------------- 140
Rule 112 --------------------------------- 6
Rule 114 --------------------------------- 796
WOLUME 7.
Rule 1 ----------- :----------------------- 9
Rule 17 ---------------------------------- 335
Rule 20 ---------------------------------- .64
Rule 35 ---------------------------------- 315
Rule 42 ----------------------------- tº dº º e = 292
Rule 44 --------- ------------------------ 388
Rule 46. ----, ---------------------------- 388
Rule 48----------------------------------- 20, 98
Rule 67 ----------------------------------- 388
Rule 81. ---- e we e s m as a s as a s º a sº e s se is sº s is a s a s s = * * * 358, 405
Rule 82. ----------------- tº º is sº tº tº yi º ºs º ºs º ſº me as ºs º 454
Rule 86-------------------------- tº e º e º e s sº tº 423
Rule 102. ------------------------------- º 480
VOLUME 8.
Rule 3------------------- gº is sº is is e º sº sº e º is sº sº sº is s 446
Rule 11------ gº ºs º gº tº e º º ºs º ºs e º is tº º sº º ſº e º º ºs e º ºs º is e 373,453
Page.
Rule 14----------------------------------- 456,458
Rule 17----------------------------------- 478
Rule 20----------------------------------- 199
Rule 23-...--... gº º e º ºs e s sº sº tº e s ºn sº as ºn e º sº is sº sº º ºs = * * * 199
Rule 24----------------------------------- 199
Rule 53----------------------------------- 121, 463
Rule 54----------------------------------- 494
Rule 55. ---------------------------------- 494
Rule 58----------------------------------- 494
Rule 76. .----------. ſº tº gº tº gº tº a s sº tº º tº ºr tº ſº º ºs º ºs & ſº as 250, 333
Rule 77----------------------------------- 137
Rule 78...-----... tº gº tº e º ºs º ºs º ºs sº as sº º sº tº e s is s an º º is sº 137,332
Rule 79.---------- tº G s sº º sº e º º ºr sº tº º e s = s. s is as a º ºs a 421
Rule 81. ---------------------------------- 373
Rule 82----------------------------------- 471.
Rule 87----------------------------------- 48
Rule 88----------------------------------- 470
Rule 90----------------------------------- 470
Rule 93. ---------------------------------- 470
Rule 102.--------------------------------- 285
TVOLUME 9.
Rule 1.----------------------------------- 211,332
Rule 10----------------------------------- 79
Rule 11----------------------------------- 220
Rule 12. ---------------------------------- 69, 79
Rule 13----------------------------------- 132, 606
Rule 14--------------------------------. 79, 132,606
Rule 15. ---------------------------------- 133
Rule 17- - - - - - - - - -------------------------- 490
Rule 18----------------------------------- 490
Rule 20----------------------- tº ſº Gº º gº tº e º ºs º ºs e 524
Rule 24----. ------------------------------ 137
Rule 35----------------------------------- 209,273
Rule 41----------------------------------- 131, 134
Rule 43----------------------------------- 254
Rule 48----------------------------------- 389,627
Rule 49. ---------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 439
Rule 53------------------------- 59,281,299, 326, 578
Rule 56. ----------- Kº º º is ºs e º sº º sm is sº e º sº º ºs º ºs º ºs s tº 134
Rule 72. ---------------------------------. 254,626
Rule 76- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 56, 102, 584
Rule 77. ------------ tº º sº ºn tº gº º e º is sº e s e s sº º a sº tº as a 363, 669
Rule 78----------------------------------- 584
Rule 81. --------- tº a sm in s = - s sº is a se e s is tº sº e º ºs e s m as e 389
Rule 82-------------------------------- 482, 599, 628
Rule 86-------------------------------- 189,265,278
Rule 87------------------------- tº º is sº a ºn m ºr as se 278
Rule 88----------------------------- 12, 278, 560,599
Rule 93 - - - - - gº ºn as sº s e is sº ºn a º ºs s as sº is is wº 170, 189,265,278, 599
Rule 94 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 170, 189
Rule 96 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 189
Rule 101 --------------------------------- 12
Rule 102 ------------------------------- 46, 249,628
VOLUME 10.
Rule 1 ---------------------------------- 399
Rule 5 ------------. --------------------- 695
Rule 9 ---------------------------------- 274,479
Rule 10 ---------------------------------- 274
Rule 13 ... -- a tº e s is e º a se e s a s = * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 621
Rule 14------ e sº se e s s m = ± sº e s m = * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 621,664
Rule 15 ---------------------------------- 388
Rule 20 ---------------------------------- 481
Rule 24-------------------- gº tº º is e º 'º - ſº º ſº tº ſº ſº 480
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
Page.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * - - - - - 340 Rule 77 ----------------------------------
* * * = e e s = º ºn tº º ºn tº - - - - 433,480 l Rule 81 ----------------------------------
• * g e s tº s sº tº ºs & © - - - - - - 628,680 l Rule 82 ----------------------------------
a s s = e º º ºs ºs º ºs tº - - - - - - 680,690 | Rule 83 ----------------------------------
a g º ºs e º 'º sº sa º ºs º a ºn tº º º ºs 679 Rule 84----------------------------------
* * * * * * * * tº º ſº tº dº tº º – º º 679,690 | Rule 85 ---------------------------------.
* * * * * * * * * * * g º º 'º - a 4- 16,679 Rule 86 ---------------------------------.
* * * e º º ºs º ºs º º me tº m - - * * 628,680 l Rule 88 ----------------------------------
tº tº a º ºs e º a s m º º º - - - - - 625, 680 l Rule 93 ----------------------------------
* - sº se sº e s tº º ºs º ºr - - - - - - 628,680 l Rule 114 --------------
tº º ºs º ſº tº e º ºs º ºn e º ºs ºn e a s 268
DIGEST OF DECISIONS
RELATING TO
E’ U B L IO L A N D S.
Abandonment. (See Contest, subtitle No. x; Donation; Duress; Re-
linquishment; Residence.)
Mere non-user does not necessarily constitute. I–115
Of land by prečmptor pending contest defeats his claim. I–404
Of claim by husband is abandonment by wife. 1-401; II–80
Sale of improvements is evidence of. II–62
Voluntary, in the face of an adverse claim which might have been
successfully contested, exhausts the prečmption right. II–573
Voluntary, on erroneous information given by the local officers (re-
garding effect of a railroad grant), makes the land public.
II–474, 570
Leaving homestead under erroneous information, but returning thereto
prior to inception of adverse right, does not constitute. III–224
General charge of, not sustained by proof of failure to settle and im-
prove within six months after filing under section 2304, Revised
Statutes. III–507
All rights lost by actual. IV—267
Acceptance of patent for less land than entered held to be an aban-
donment of the tract eliminated. IV-171
Presumes a prior residence. IV—200
Can not be excused because the result of erroneous advice. IV—166
Charge of, should be specific. - lW–122
Proceedings in the local courts admitted to disprove the charge of
abandonment. IV—502
Absence caused by judicial compulsion does not constitute.
V–6; VII–532
Shown by concurrent act and intent. W–179
Not presumed from absences following entry, when a period of res-
idence longer than that required by law had preceded the entry.
W–238
Temporary absence in the discharge of an official duty, after a period
of residence greater than required by law, does not constitute.
- WI–307
69
70 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
Abandonment—Continued.
Absence for a considerable period does not constitute, when followed
by a bona fide continuous inhabitancy. WI–324
Absence from the land, resulting from duress, is not.
II–572, 602; v1–616
Absence from land does not constitute, where the family continues
to reside thereon. t VII–35
A homestead entry, covering part of a previous prečmption claim,
is in law an abandonment of that part of said claim not so entered.
IX—402
Presumption of, attends a failure to exercise, within a reasonable
time, a preferred right. IX—541
Effect of, not overcome by returning to the land in the presence of
an intervening adverse right. IX—546
Accounts. (See Fees ; Land Department ; Repayment.)
Payment of public funds should be made to the receiver. 1–524
Claims for unauthorized expenditures not allowed. I–537
Expenditure in excess of appropriation not authorized. I–537
Section 3683, Revised Statutes, construed to include clerk hire, rent,
etc., for local offices. I–537
Deficiency in salaries, etc., not chargeable to fund arising from sale
of Indian lands. - I–520
Circular regulations of August 7, 1889, with respect to vouchers. IX—229
Circular regulations of December 4, 1889. IX—655
Vouchers for official telegrams required. III–389
Schedule of rates for government telegrams. III–123
Telegrams from subordinate officers to the Secretary of the Interior
must be prepaid. III–111
Directions to special agents. III–575
Manner of keeping, for reducing testimony to writing and clerical
services in contest cases. Circular of November 6, 1886. W–245
Costs of registration in giving notice. W–204
In case of contest fees, officers' fees, etc. Circular of August 18, 1886.
W–569
Fees and commissions, contest fees, etc., how charged and disposed
of. Circular of March 15, 1887. W-577
Cancellation fees deposited before the act of August 4, 1886, but not
earned until after said act, must be accounted for under the regu-
lations of March 15, 1887. VIII–296
The validity of all claims should be ascertained regardless of appar-
ent former legislative and executive construction. W–712
The appropriation of money by special acts of Congress for the pay.
ment of particular claims is not an admission that the government
recognizes its liability for the amount of such claims, or other
claims of like character. W–712
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 71
Accounts—Continued.
Finally closed by rejection of claim and the employment of another
party to perform the work. - V-17
Distinction made as between the “settlement” and “compromise”
of claim. W–240
Full authority in Department to ascertain and determine amounts
due the government. tº W–240
Method of adjustment discretionary with the Commissioner of the
General Land Office. Iv–269, 454, 550
For surveys, how adjusted. IV-451
The Commissioner may properly refuse to adjust the account of a
deputy surveyor pending an examination of the work in the field.
. IV—269, 454, 550
Of deputy surveyor may be adjusted without an examination in the
field. - X—199
Of deputy surveyor not allowed without proper affidavits of assist-
antS. - - IV—329
Presented with evidence required by practice prima facie just. IV—454
Rendered by a deputy surveyor and approved by the surveyor-gen-
eral, should not be rejected on the report of a special agent with-
out opportunity for a hearing. - VIII–156
A provision in a deputy surveyor's contract that the cost of the work
shall not exceed a specified amount restricts the adjustment of the
account accordingly. VIII–185
Accretion. See Public Land.
Administrator. (See Entry, subtitle Timber Culture; Final Proof,
subtitle Homestead ; Homestead.)
Adverse Claim. See Final Proof, Mining Claim.
Affidavit. (See Application; Contest; Entry, subtitles XIII and XV;
Evidence.)
Is not evidence. III–250
May only be made before the local officers when they are in discharge
of official duty in the local office during business hours. III–108
Of contest, requisites of. IV—87
Of contest should be dated. IV–84
Of contest, dates from the time received at the local office. VI-530
For contest may be made on information and belief. III–513
Of contest is not defective because made outside the land district.
III–419
Of qualification, with application to enter, though informal, sufficient
in case of timber-culture contest. III–419
Of contest signed by contestant's attorney as one of two witnesses is
valid. II–217
72 - DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
Affidavit—Continued.
Of contest may be executed before the attorney of contestant in the
absence of inhibition found in the rules of practice or local law.
III–98
Of contest in Dakota may not be executed before one, as a notary
public, who is the contestant's attorney. II–212
Of contest in Dakota not invalid because executed before the attor-
ney of contestant. III–248
Of contest should be rejected if defective, with opportunity to amend.
IV—255
Sufficiency of for contest not considered except on objection. IV-425
Made under section 2294, Revised Statutes, is for the protection of the
settler's claim against strangers; if executed prior to, but received
at the local office subsequent to, a private entry, the settler has
priority of right to-the land. II–123
Not made in conformity with section 2294, Revised Statutes, renders
the entry illegal and subject to cancellation. II–93
In Dakota, required by 2294, Revised Statutes, may be made before
a probate judge when acting in his clerical capacity. II–209
When a county embraces territory in two land districts a claimant
for land in one district may, under section 2294, Revised Statutes,
make affidavit at the county seat in the other district. II–90
In Alabama, where a county and circuit court have original jurisdic-
tion in a county, must be made before clerk of circuit court. II–223
When there is more than one court of original jurisdiction (county
and circuit) in a county (in Alabama), may be made before the
clerk of either court. II–207
For Soldier's homestead entry may be executed before clerk of court.
III–280
Preliminary, in timber-culture entry, may be received though executed
while the land was covered by a prior entry. I–121
Made as the basis of an entry while the land is under appropriation
can not be received. - I–164
Preliminary, in timber-culture entry, invalid if sworn to before the
township plat is filed. I–157
Preliminary, required of timber culture entryman must be executed
in person and within the land district in which entry is to be made.
WI–601
As to citizenship, in case of entry, sufficient where it follows the
statute. IV—191
A probate judge may take affidavits, as judge, in final homestead
proof, and as clerk in preemption and commuted homestead cases,
provided they be taken at the county seat at which the court is
holden. II–224
Clerks of district courts are authorized to take final affidavits in
homestead and prečmption cases, whether or not the court holds
Sessions in the county. II–200
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 73
Agricultural College Lands.
Claims for, adjusted at maximum rates within limits of railroad
grant. - W–243
Alabama. (See Homestead, subtitle, No. XIII; Mineral Land,)
Alaska.
Mining regulations for. IW-128
Alien. (See Contest, subtitle Homestead; Filing ; Homestead ; Natu-
ralization ; Settlement.)
Right of election as to citizenship conferred upon Mexicans only by
the treaty of 1848. I–489
May hold realty until office found. IV–565
Can acquire no right to public land before filing declaration of inten-
tion to become a citizen. VI–98, 615
Can acquire no rights by settlement. I–444, 489
The disability of alienage is removed when the settler becomes a
citizen, and, in the absence of any adverse claim, his right relates
back to the date of settlement, though made when he was an alien.
VII–229; x–475.
Can acquire no right to public land before declaration of intention to
become a citizen, and his subsequent qualification will not relate
back to the exclusion of an intervening adverse right. X–463
Instructions of June 12, 1883, and January 31, 1884, to foreign-born
applicants for public land. - II–194, 195
Alienation. (See Entry; Final Proof; Practice, subtitle No. IX.)
I. GENERALLY.
II. IDESERT LAND.
II]. HOMESTEAD.
IV. OSAGE LAND.
V. PREišMPTION.
VI. TIMBER CULTURE.
VII. TIMBER LAND.
I. GENERALLY.
Not proved by showing the execution of a power of attorney to sell.
IX—311
Right of, exists where there has been due compliance with law and
the final certificate has issued. I-494; III–23; IV—136,
350, 544; V-170, 315, 609, 702; v1–122, 517; VII–368
Purchaser prior to patent not entitled to be heard in contest proceed-
ings against the entry. I–106
Purchaser after entry, and before patent, takes only an equity, and
is charged with notice of all defects in the title.
III–23; V–55,442; VII–327; VIII–46; IX—316, 573; x–415
74 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
I. GENERALLY-Continued.
After entry and before patent confers no better title than the entry-
man had. II–795; III–393; IV-347,
570; VII-236, 287; VIII-269, 331, 524; 1x-159, 316, 329
Purchaser of land prior to the issuance of patent therefor takes only
an equity, and subject to any infirmities that may exist in the title
of the vendor. IX—480
After final proof brings no new element into the case in determining
the validity of the entry. v1–263, 503
Rights of a transferee are in no sense other or different from those of
the entryman. v–55, 276, 589; Ix–580
While the transferee, after entry and before patent, has no greater
right than the entryman, yet there should be no excessive search
for objections to defeat him. WI–606
Prior to the issuance of final certificate, will not defeat the right to a
patent where the proof shows due compliance with law.
v1–218; VII–292, 455; VIII–268; IX-101
After final proof, and prior to the issuance of final certificate, will not
necessarily defeat the right to a patent, though the nomalienation
affidavit was not furnished, if the prečmptor had in fact complied
with the law at the time of making proof, and could have then
truthfully made such affidavit. VIII–486
Purchaser of land prior to the issuance of patent therefor entitled to
be heard in defense of the entry. IV—544, 570; V-22, 170,276, 589,
603; VI-263, 440, 503, 770; VIII–641; IX—481, 561, 576
The right of a transferee to be heard in defense of the entry will not
be defeated by the fact that the transfer is not of record.
VIII–283, 526
Transferee who files statement in the local office showing his interest
in an entry is entitled to notice of all proceedings against the same.
* V–603; VIII–641; IX—561, 576; X—566
Equitable consideration will be given to evidence submitted by a
transferee in defense of the entry. VIII–486, 641
Mortgagee may show that the entryman had complied with the law.
VIII–618
Transferee may submit testimony to show that the entryman had
complied with the law, and not disqualified himself for the execu-
tion of the necessary proof of nonalienation. VIII–486
No authority of law for the substitution of the mortgagee in the place
of the entryman. VI-263
One who purchases land during the pendency of an appeal, involving
the validity of the title thereto, is charged with notice of the
appeal. X-415
II. DESERT LAND.
A purchase prior to patent of land covered by a desert-land entry
does not make the buyer an “innocent purchaser.” II—25
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 75.
III. HOMESTEAD.
Purchaser after commutation and prior to patent takes, subject to
the action of the Land Department. IV—347
The attempted transfer of a homestead claim before final proof gives
the transferee no standing before the Department. X–548
Homesteader may, before issuance of final certificate, for any purpose
not inconsistent with good faith, mortgage his claim. VIII–243
Assignee of a certificate of soldier's additional homestead right takes
it subject to all defects; is not an innocent purchaser. II–235
After due compliance with law by the homesteader, payment of fees,
and submission of final proof, but prior to the issuance of final cer-
tificate, does not defeat the right to a patent. . X–142
Right is defeated by the sale, prior to final proof, of an undivided
half interest of the land entered, and such defect can not be cured
by a reconveyance in the presence of a contest charging said
illegality. X–274
Homestead right not defeated by a deed prior to survey in adjust-
ment of possessory rights, but revoked before entry when found to
cover a part of the homestead claim. WI–95
Contract to convey after patent does not defeat right of entry.
- III–284
A contract to convey after final proof will not in itself defeat a home-
stead claim, though it raises a presumption of bad faith. WI–95
An agreement to convey part of a homestead after final entry vio-
lates section 2290, Revised Statutes. II–55
An attempted sale of a homestead will not warrant cancellation of
the entry, but it raises a presumption of bad faith. II–143, 233
A written agreement to execute, after acquiring title, a warranty
deed to part of a homestead does not affect the entryman's status,
as it is illegal, because prohibited by law or by public policy, and
can not be enforced; only an absolute conveyance, which can be
enforced, defeats his right. II–71
A bond for a deed of half the land, conditioned upon payment within
three years, is in fraud of the law (Sec. 2289, R. S.). II–97
A quitclaim deed executed under duress will be treated as null and
void. - - II–86.
Quitclaim deed made prior to original entry, for small part of claim,
does not impeach good faith. III–284
IV. OSAGE LAND.
If settlement is made in good faith, under the act of May 28, 1880, a
subsequent agreement to convey the land will not in itself invali-
date the entry. VIII–173.
Of Osage diminished reserve land, not unlawful, after compliance
with law and issuance of final Certificate. IX—98.
T6 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
V. PREEMPTION.
The right of prečmption is not subject to sale and transfer. II—559
Prior to final proof defeats the right of prečmption. VI—746
The doctrine of “bona-fide purchaser” does not apply to purchase of
a prečmptor before patent; if the entry is fraudulent or void, the
purchaser takes nothing. II–599; III–393
The execution of a warranty deed, by prečmptor prior to entry is a
legal bar thereto, but does not vitiate the prečmption right, hence
the entry may be admitted on reconveyance by the grantee.
I–407, 453
Of inconsiderable quantity of land without fraudulent intent, not re-
garded under Sec. 2262, Revised Statutes. I–453
Whether an assignment by the prečmptor after entry was made to a
bona fide purchaser is immaterial as affecting the right of the en-
tryman to assign. III–23
A contract made by a prečmptor to convey the land on receipt of
final certificate renders the entry fraudulent and requires its can-
cellation. VIII–269
Prečmptor may mortgage his claim to secure money for the purpose
of making final proof all d payment. I–409; VI—340; Ix–337
The purchaser of a void title can not set up the rule of equitable es-
toppel, that loss should fall on that one of two innocent persons
whose conduct rendered the injury possible. II–797
That one made a speculative settlement under section 2262, Revised
Statutes, may be proved by a contract before entry to convey after
entry; but an agreement or contract causing title to “inure”
could only be made by a formal conveyance. II–781
The clause in section 2262, Revised Statutes, concerning bona fide
purchasers refers to sales before, and not after, entry; it has re-
spect to the effect of the conveyance as between grantor and
grantee, and not as between either party and the government; it
is to be enforced in the courts, and not in the Land Department.
II–779, 781, 783
Where the land is not subject to prečmption the entryman acquires
no interest in it by his entry, and therefore can convey none; his
grantee prior to patent is not a bona fide purchaser. Il-782, 795
The rescission of an agreement to convey will not validate acts of
settlement that were invalid when performed, because made for the
benefit of another. III–488; VI-285
Prečmption right not defeated by a contract to convey which is re-
Scinded prior to final entry. II–638
VI. TIMBER, CULTURE.
Making a bond for a deed after a patent, with delivery of possession,
retaining only the right of entry for breach of condition, is holding
the claim for another's use and benefit, and works a forfeiture,
notwithstanding resumption of possession. II—329
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 77
VII. TIMBER LAND.
Prior to patent, will not abridge authority of the Department over
an entry under the timber and stone act. IX—573
Purchaser of land held under final certificate (timber land) takes an
equity only, and is charged with notice of all defects in the title.
X—415.
Allotment. (See Indian Lands.)
Amendment. (See Application; Contest; Entry; Filing; Practice.)
Appeal. (See Practice.)
Application. (See Contest.)
I. GENERALLY.
II. AMENDMENT.
III. DESERT LAND.
IV. HOMESTEAD.
V. PREßMPTION.
VI. PRIVATE ENTRY.
VII. TIMBER, CULTURE.
VIII. TIMBER LAND.
IX. WITH CONTEST.
X. WITH RELINQUISHMENT.
I. GENERALLY.
In the absence of, the right to make an entry will not be considered.
IV—310; VII-254; IX—194
To enter, must show residence and post-office address. Circular of
October 25, 1886. W–198
When filed, name of applicant to be noted thereon. V–198.
Rejection of application should be duly noted under rule 66.
I–81; IV—350, 535
Of record is notice. IV—366
Failure to make written, held without prejudice, on account of erro-
neous advice of the local officers. I–151
Rejection of, may be reviewed on appeal. III–473
When presented due record of action thereon should be made.
IV—350, 535
Not defeated by failure to fill a blank left in the prescribed form of
preliminary affidavit, where the intended use of said blank is not
apparent. WI–365
To enter must show the present status of the land and qualifications
of the applicant. X–364
Affidavit with, prima facie proof as to qualifications. IV—352
Acceptance of, with agreement to place of record when a previous
entry is canceled confers no right. II–49
The presentation of papers to the local office, with instructions to
file them under certain contingencies, is not a legal. WI–365
78 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
I. GENERALLY –Continued.
Transmitted by mail, is to be regarded as filed at the moment it
reaches the local office (9 a.m.), though the letter of transmittal is
not opened until afterward. II–326
Presentation to, and acceptance by, the local officer (receiver) at a
place other than the local office is unlawful, and does not bar an
application properly, but subsequently, filed on the same day.
II–320
Not invalidated because received out of office hours. V-694; v1–1
Handed to one of the local officers out of the office, not in office hours,
and without the required fee, is not legal. III–108
For public land, may be withdrawn at any time. V-222; IX-29
Can not be acted upon during vacancy in the local office. I–150
Made during vacancy in local office confers no vested right. IV—170
All presented at opening of new land office treated as simultaneous.
- * I–157
The right to make entry in cases of simultaneous, should only be sold
to the highest bidder in the absence of settlement and improve.
ment. III–312
Rules for the reception of, on filing new plats only applied in like
CàSéS. IV—318
Not simultaneous where a few seconds intervene. III-419; Iv–190
How treated when simultaneous. III–535
In case of simultaneous, improvements should be considered. IV—190
Reliance upon bid to determine preference in case of simultaneous
applications, precludes setting up after acquired improvements.
IV—190
Becomes the entry when recorded. III–514
Considered as evidence of tract desired. IV—422
Saves the right of the applicant as against others, though unacted
upon. s IV—350, 455
To enter reserves the land covered thereby from any other disposi-
tion until final action thereon. II–43; III–156, 218,
344; IV—455; V–424; VII–136; IX—29,92, 545; x–192, 510
To re-instate canceled entry reserves the land. II–43; IV—446
Application to amend entry reserves the land applied for.
III–156; IV—365; V–149
There is no difference in principle between the case of a filing (home.
stead application) made of record and that of one offered and er-
roneously rejected. II–37, 548
Mere notice of appeal is not a bar to any other application or entry.
III–120
To enter may be allowed during the period accorded for the exercise
of the preference right of a successful contestant, subject to such
right. I–162; II–321; IV—534; VI—643; IX—70; x–221
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 79
I. GENERALLY-Continued.
To enter may be received during the time allowed for appeal from a
judgment of cancellation, subject to such appeal, but should not
be made of record until the rights of the former entryman are
finally determined. v1–563; x–221
To enter lands within railroad grant, pending on appeal, may be al-
lowed on the forfeiture of the grant. WI–679
Though properly rejected because prematurely made, may be subse.
Quently allowed on the removal of the bar. WI–679
Rejected on account of railroad indemnity withdrawal, may be allowed,
when the withdrawal is revoked, as of the date when the land was
opened to entry. VI–309, 378; VII–241
To enter barred by invalid school selection; but as the application
is in the nature of an attack upon such selection, it may be allowed
on the cancellation of the selection. WI–439
To enter land involved in a contest must remain in abeyance until
final disposition of the contest. IX—578
For land covered by prima facie void entry should be held till the
status of the entry is settled. III–181; IV-448
To enter should not be allowed during the pendency of a charge
affecting the good faith of the entryman. X-402
To enter land certified to a State under a railroad grant will not be
entertained. X-575
To enter lands covered by unapproved railroad selection, procedure
in case of. X—504
To enter, made pending appeal from the rejection of a former appli-
cation is in effect a waiver of the first. IX—29
II. AMENDMENT.
To amend an entry reserves the land covered thereby.
II–43; III–156; IV—365; V-149; VI-264
To amend a filing protects the pre-emptor as against intervening
claims, and if granted relates back to the date when it was made.
IX-139
To amend a filing takes precedence over a subsequent filing by
another for the same land. VII–324
To amend a filing will protect the applicant as against the subse-
Quent settlement of another. IX—98
The right to amend not to be abridged by technical rules. III–429
Of homestead, irregular because executed while land was appropri-
ated, allowed (there being no adverse claim). II-270
May not be amended to include land not intended to have been cov-
ered by the original application. W–643
Timber-culture, erroneous in form (naming wrong act) and returned
for correction, takes effect as of the date upon which it was first
received. II–44
80 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
II. AMENDMENT—Continued.
Timber-culture, may not be altered or amended by an attorney, so
as to include a different tract. II–261
Intervening adverse claim cuts off right to amend defective. I–164
A change in the description of the land included in, pending final
action thereon is subject to intervening settlement rights. IX—302
To amend an entry does not excuse the claimant from compliance
with law while pending. W–349
When an application is rejected for defect the applicant may amend
or appeal, but can not do both, and in neither case can the land be
reserved awaiting such choice of action. III–120
Coal land, improperly made by an agent, may, in absence of adverse
filing or complaint, be made nunc pro twmc. II–735
III. DESERT LAND.
Is the initiation of the claim. WI–541
To make desert entry, accompanied by the purchase money, segre-
gates the land. W–694
Must show the personal knowledge of the applicant as to the char-
acter of the land. VII–312; VIII–96
If in accordance with existing regulations, should not be rejected
because not in conformity with later requirements, VIII–408.
To make desert entry can not be allowed while the land is covered
by a previous timber culture entry of the applicant. X—541
IV. HOMESTEAD.
To make entry under section 2294, Revised Statutes, as amended,
circular of June 25, 1890. X—6S7
To make homestead entry not accompanied by the requisite fees does
not reserve the land. VIII–224
Returned because accompanying fees are insufficient will be accepted,
if refiled before other rights intervene (contest or entry.) II–279.
Erroneous refusal to accept homestead claim, on ground that land
was reserved as saline, does not prejudice the claim; entry must
be allowed as of date of application. II–848.
To make homestead entry not defeated for want of a tender of fees.
and commission and preliminary affidavit, where it was rejected on
account of the preferred right of another. VII–186.
To purchase under the act of June 15, 1880, reserves the laud. Iv–32
To make homestead entry, if legal, is equivalent, while pending, to
actual entry so far as the rights of the applicant are concerned.
IX–92
To make homestead entry protects the applicant from the interven-
tion of any adverse claim until final action thereon. IX—29, 92
Of homesteader dying before entry reserves the land and entitles the
heirs to complete the entry. II–77; WI-134
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 81
IV. HOMESTEAD–Continued.
On behalf of minor heirs. V-222
Will not be accepted if the preliminary affidavit is made while the
land is under appropriation. II–269
Tor entry is barred by a pending application for re-instatement. II–43
To make homestead entry can not be allowed for land covered by a
school selection. X–263
Applicant, alien born, required to furnish proof of declaration of inten-
tion to become a citizen. II–194
V. PREEMPTION.
To file, made pending appeal from the rejected timber-culture appli-
cation of another may be received. II–276
May not be filed prior to adjudication of an occupant claim in Ari-
ZOIlºl. - II–343
To file should not be allowed for lands covered by a pending railroad
selection until after disposition of such selection. X—454
To file a declaratory statement does not segregate the land, but the
subsequent application of another is subject thereto. X–616
VI. PRIVATE ENTRY.
To make private entry of lands not subject thereto confers no right
nor can any right thereafter be acquired through such application
by reason of the changed status of the land. WI–522
To make private entry must be made in writing to the register.
WI–805
To purchase at private cash entry not considered by the Department
except on appeal from the Commissioner's decision. WI–805
Of contestant, claiming a preference right, does not entitle him to
make entry of land not subject thereto. VIII–282
VII. TIMBER, CULTURE.
And affidavit there with considered as one paper in timber-culture
entry. I–157
Timber-culture application not fatally defective for want of appli.
cant's post-office address. III–468
To make timber-culture entry must be presented within a reasonable
time after the execution of the preliminary affidavit. X—325
Without tender of fees does not give the applicant right of entry.
- II–276
With check for fees, will not bar a subsequent application with pay.
ment of fees in money (filed on the same day). II–320
With tender of fees and commissions may be perfected by the heirs
(widow) after applicant's death. II–546
To make timber-culture entry segregates the land. IX—578
To make Second timber-culture entry reserves the land embraced
therein. IX—383
10464—6
82 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
VII. TIMBER, CULTURE–Continued.
For timber-culture entry can not be made in good faith when the
applicant has not seen the land. III–152; VI—282
To make timber-culture entry must be made in person, and within
the land district in which the land is situated. IV-491; VI-601, 762
To make timber-culture entry allowed under rulings in force when
offered. WI–217
To make timber-culture entry will not be allowed on the ground that
it should have been accepted under the rulings in force when pre-
Sented. VI—772
Where there are simultaneous applications for the land, the privilege
of making the entry shall be put up at auction and sold to the
highest bidder. II–687, 689; III–535
The rule to be observed in case of simultaneous, under the timber-
Culture law. I–157
Where accompanying affidavit shows but a hundred, or a half acre
of, trees confined to the margin of a stream, and the plats show a
sparse growth of timber, the application must be accepted, subject
to satisfactory proof of the character of the land. II–274
Denying that land is timbered, must be received subject to satisfac.
tory proof of the facts. II–850 .
With request to be held in abeyance, will not be received pending a
contest against prior timber-culture entry in Saume section. II–34
Filed before cancellation of an entry (after relinquishment in 1878),
with fees and commissions, gave applicant no rights. II–49
With preliminary affidavit made while the land is under appropria-
tion will not be accepted. I–164; III–320
Will be received during the existence of, and subject to, a preferred
right of entry acquired by successful contest (against timber-culture
entry). II–276, 321
Applicant for entry not required to furnish more than the statutory
evidence to show that he has declared his intention of becoming a
citizen. III–606
Applicants alien born must accompany their affidavits with proof
that they have declared their intention to become citizens. II–194
Erroneous rejection of timber-culture application (because of existing -
preferred right) protects applicant; whether he tendered his oath
and the fees is immaterial. II–321
Where applicant tenders fees and commissions, but application is
erroneously rejected, his right of entry is not prejudiced, and inures
to the benefit of his heirs. II–546
VIII. TIMBER LAND.
To purchase under the act of June 3, 1878, does not reserve the land.
II–333; IV-176, 238; VIII—414; IX—335
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 83
VIII. TIMBER LAND–Continued.
An application initiates a valid claim to the tract, in like manner as
a prečmption declaratory filing; the applicant has a preferred
right against everybody but the United States and one claiming a
prior right to the land. II–333, 335; VIII–412
An application to purchase under said act should not be rejected on
account of a temporary order of reservation made by the General
Land Office after the application was filed and notice thereof given.
- VIII–412
Application apparently not in good faith should be rejected, and
those of doubtful character noted for investigation. III–85
Preliminary affidavit in entry compared to that required under the
timber-culture law. VII–10
The preliminary affidavit does not bar homestead entry pending pub-
lication, which, however, is subject to the rights of the prior claim-
ant (timber) if established at final proof. II–333, 336
IX. WITH CONTEST.
For the land (homestead or timber-culture) must be filed with the
application to contest a timber-culture entry. II-245, 275, 285, 294
A request, in the affidavit, that the contestant “be allowed to enter
said tract under the homestead laws” is sufficient. II–42
For the land, with new contest, may be filed where the first was dis-
missed, in the absence of adverse rights. II–245, 290
For the land must be accompanied by affidavit showing qualifica-
tions. II–292
Is not barred by a pending contest which is illegal (without applica-
tion for the land, or with application to prečmpt), or void on its
face (alleging failure to cultivate the first year after entry).
II–248, 259,282, 293, 297
The offer to file an application for the land with a contest against a
timber-culture entry protects the contestant, though he failed to
file it because erroneously informed by the local officers that it was
unnecessary. II–245, 319
Timber culture, considered as the foundation for action in case of
Contest. IV—540
A mere expression of Willingness to file an application for the land
with the contest (timber-culture), which the local officers declared
to be unnecessary, without tender of it, does not protect the con-
testant. II–290
Of a timber-culture contestant is not defeated by the possession of a
defaulting entryman. IV-508
To make timber-culture entry, filed with a contest, reserves the land
pending final action thereon. IX—161
To enter, filed with a timber-culture contest, is equivalent to an entry
So far as the rights of the contestant are concerned. VII-335
84 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
IX. WITH CONTEST-Continued.
To enter, filed by a successful contestant, at the initiation of a timber-
culture contest, when allowed, relates back and takes effect as of
the date thereof, to the exclusion of intervening claims. VII–330
To make timber-culture entry, filed with a timber-culture contest,
entitles the heirs of a deceased contestant to the right of entry on
the successful termination of the contest. IX-161
To enter, filed with timber-culture contest, fails on the rejection of
the contest. VII—352
The rejection of an application to contest carries with it the rejection
of the accompanying application to enter. IX-211, 569
To enter, filed by a timber-culture contestant confers no right if
abandoned prior to the termination of the contest. IX—193
To enter, filed by a second contestant with his affidavit of contest,
against a timber-culture entry, reserves the land, subject only to
the rights of the first contestant. VII–26; x–532
Filed with contest confers no right if not followed up by entry after
judgment of cancellation. II–50
To enter filed by timber-culture contestant may be amended at the
hearing. W–211
X. WITH RELINQUISHMENT.
Accompanied by a relinquishment is at once effective on the filing of
the relinquishment. I–122, 155; IV—188; x–139
Accompanied by relinquishment relates back upon cancellation, under
section 1, act of May 14, 1880. IV—123
To enter accompanying a relinquishment takes the land as against a
settler on the land. - W–149
Accompanied by relinquishment should be received subject to adverse
claims. V–451
To make entry pending, will take precedence over one filed with a
relinquishment. VIII–559
To file a declaratory statement, accompanied by relinquishment, pre-
sented during the pendency of a contest, can only be received sub-
ject to the right of the contestant. IX—269
Accompanied by relinquishment of the prior entry of another may
be received, though the affidavit there with is executed prior to the
cancellation of said entry. I–121
Approximation. (See Entry.)
Arid Lands.
Circular of August 5, 1889, calling attention to the act of Congress
October 2, 1888, and directing the reservation of lands included
therein. IX—282
Arkansas. (See States and Territories.)
&
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 85
Attorney. (See Affidavit.)
Qualifications required of, who practices before the Department.
III–113
Regulations as to recognition of Circular of 1886. V–337
Regulations affecting the practice in the local offices. Circular of
March 19, 1887. V-508
The restrictions of section 190, R. S., apply to all the Departments.
Q g IV-179
The acceptance of a new appointment after June 1, 1872, brings such
person within the inhibition of section 190, R. S., though his origi-
nal appointment may have been prior to such date and his service
thereafter continuous. IV-179
A claim for title to public land is a “claim against the United States”
in the meaning of section 190, R. S., and the disability therein cre-
ated extends to the prosecution of such a claim. IV—179
Official order under act of July 4, 1884, as to former employés of the
Department. IV-220
Holding appointment as U. S. commissioner will not be admitted to
practice before the Department. IV—55
Must file oath of office. W–341
On appearance not required to produce authority. I–480
At law, who appears before the local office, required to file written
appearance, stating specifically for whom he appears.
Iv–299; VI—509
In fact required to file written authority. Iv–299; W1–509
Address of and name of, party represented must be stated. W–343
Required to file written authority in hearings under circular of July
31, 1885. IV—504
The statute authorizes the reqttirement of July 31, 1885. IV-527
Circular requirement of July 31, 1885, as to written authority of, not
applicable where appearance was entered prior thereto. IV-527
Circular requirement of July 31, 1885, in appearance for alleged
fraudulent entrymen not applicable in practice before the General
Land Office or the Department. . W–340
Empowered to act before the Land Department under words of gen-
eral authority. III–262
Authority of, presumed from appearance. W–342, 400
Authority of, is presumed, but not conclusively, and may be inquired
into. VI-269,509
Authority of, to enter appearance presumed from subsequent em-
ployment. VI-335
If authority of, is questioned, due showing may be made in respouse.
IX—525
Authority of, to appear in a case can not be questioned by one who,
in the service of papers in said case, relies upon notice to such
attorney. IX-11
86 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
Attorney—Continued.
Appearance of, is general in the absence of expressed limitation.
VI-269
The appearance is “general,” where defendant's attorney appears
and cross-examines the Witnesses; the effect of such appearance can
not be avoided by calling it “special.” X-405
Or agent can not substitute another, unless by prior power of sub-
stitution or subsequent ratification. * II—214
A power of attorney is revoked by principal's death. II–241
In case of widow’s marriage or death, her attorney does not thereby
become the children’s attorney. II–241
Having been employed to do certain things, the attorneyship ceases
with the performance of the engagement. III–127
Power of, properly revoked on the withdrawal of claim. V-222
Whether a power of attorney given to an attorney while disbarred
may be used after his re-instatement quare. II—214
Pending the adjustment of a claim the revocation of a power of at-
torney will be recognized on proper showing. III–261
Claim of, to a power coupled with an interest, not recognized in the
case of one representing alleged derivative claimants of a State,
where want of good faith in the claim is apparent from the record.
WI–403
Practicing before the Department presumed to know the rules of
practice. III–250; VI—236
Rules as to, established in the courts followed so far as practicable
in the Department. V-400
Not of record in a case may not inspect the papers. II–222
Extent of right to examine records in the Department. IV—336
Right of, to examine record preliminary to actual appearance. V–400
Right of, to examine papers upon which action has been taken. V–400
In good standing may examine records, etc. V–340
Brief of, containing scurrilous and impertinent matter will be stricken
from the files. IX—130
The judge and clerk of the same court can not act in public land
cases, one as an attorney before the other, and the other judicially
in the Same cases. III–112
Of record in a case can not, as a notary public or clerk of court,
administer oaths in the case; in Dakota this is expressly prohib.
ited by statute. II–212
As notary, may under the laws of Dakota administer oath to his
client in the preparation of contest affidavit. IV—126
Not to act as notaries. IV—299
Evidence in cases contested should not be taken before, acting as
notary. III–98, 250
Signature as one of two witnesses to an affidavit of contest does not
invalidate it. II–217.
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 87
Attorney—Continued.
May fill in the date of entry (timber culture) in an application for
COnteSt. II-260
May not alter or amend an application for entry (timber culture) so
that it shall embrace a different tract. II–261
Rights not acquired by acting upon erroneous information by. II–56
Action of, conclusive. IV—267
Rights lost through action of, not restored after intervention of
adverse claim. IV—267
Introduction of frivolous matters by, during contest. IV—385
Apparently representing different and conflicting claims suggests
speculative collusion. IV—197
Disbarred from practice before the Land Department, will neverthe-
less be recognized as a notary public. II—214
Acting for entryman and for adverse claimants, and also endeavor-
ing to secure the land for himself, will be disbarred. II–62
Proceedings for the disbarment of, should be reported to the Depart-
ment. IX—520
It is not the province of the Land Department to inquire into con-
duct of attorneys in matters not affecting the title to public land.
II–616; VII–356
Engaged in fictitious and speculative contests should be reported to
the Commissioner. III–120
Speculative collusion suggested by alleged agreement. IV—268
Questions between client and, not considered where the claim under
prosecution is abandoned. VII–356
Attorney-General.
Opinions of, advisory, and not obligatory upon the heads of Depart
mentS. VII–100
Cases not referred to, except where the Secretary of the Interior is
in doubt as to the correct conclusion. W–277
Atherton-Fowler. (For applications of the doctrine, see Settlement.)
California. (See School Land; States and Territories.)
Cancellation. (See Entry, subtitle No. X; Judgment.)
Certificate.
Final, until approved by the General Land Office is only prima facie
evidence of equitable title. VII–86; VIII-269
Final, issued on timber-culture proof prematurely made, should not
be canceled, but suspended. VII–231
Of entry at variance with application. IV—422
Rights not prejudiced by delay in the issuance of final.
VI—218; VII–292, 455; VIII–268, 475; IX-101; x–144
Final, issued without authority is void. WI–444
88 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
Certificate—Continued.
Final, issued to prečmptor is only prima facie evidence of payment.
II–48
Certificate of Deposit. º -
Circular instructions concerning. III–350, 599; IV-488
On account of Surveys is assignable. III–4
Certificates of deposits for, may be assigned under act of March 3,
1879. I–309
To secure survey receivable in payment for any public land entered
under the homestead or prečmption law. I–522
For survey returned if the entry fails. I–533
In excess of the cost of land entered by one person, may by used by
another on making his payment. III–348
For survey issued before March 3, 1879, used only for purchase of
lands in township surveyed. Iv–328,488
Issued for deposit made since the act of August 7, 1882, to cover
excess occurring under contract made before said act, is receivable
for any public land entered under the homestead or prečmption
law. Iv–326,488
Certificates issued for deposit to secure the survey of a private claim
can not be used in payment for lands entered under the prečmption
or homestead laws. II–463
Used in payment for land may be returned where the entry fails and
the certificate remains in the control of the Commissioner. I–533
Certification. (See Patent.).
Certiorari.
Application for, must be under oath. Iv–31, 558; VI-605
Petition should be accompanied by copy of decision complained of.
Iv–31; V-588; IX-648; X-159
Applicant for, must furnish copy of decision which he wishes to be
reviewed or set out a specific recital of it. II–68; III–184
Application for, should set forth specifically the grounds on which it
is made and the facts relied upon. I–565, 62S; v1–605; Ix–170
Assignment of errors not required on application for. I–565
Application for, suspends action in case. IW–314
Application for, when filed in the General Land Office, should be for-
warded. IV—314
Is not a writ of right, but issues in the discretion of the petitioned
tribunal, on a prima facie showing of substantial injustice in the
action of the court below.
1–565; 11–769; III–503; Iv–32; v–205; IX—172; x–160
Applicant for, must make a prima facie showing of matter subject to
supervision, so that a reasonable presumption of error or oversight
is raised, and the Department convinced that its intervention is re-
quired for proper administration of public business or prevention
of possible injury. I–569; II-215, 419; III–183, 594
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 89
Certiorari—Continued.
When it is made to appear that the supervisory authority of the
Secretary should be exercised the application should be granted,
whether made formally or otherwise. VII–494
The origin of, in the requirement that on denial of right of appeal the
case shall be forwarded to the Department. I–628
Instituted to secure a review where the right of appeal does not ex-
ist. III–325; IV—269, 314, 559
Provided to cover cases where the Commissioner formally decides
against the right of appeal. IV—314; 5–671
Matter which might and should have been set up on appeal, but was
not within the prescribed time, is not good ground for. IX–668
Not granted where the right of appeal is lost through failure to file
the same in time. IV—331; V-235; WI–122
Will not be granted if it is apparent that the failure to be heard on
appeal, or through motion for rehearing, is the result of the appli-
cant's negligence. VIII–396
Will lie where entry is canceled without notice and appeal denied
because not filed in time. IV–11
Writ will not issue though the case is ea parte and the right of appeal
is lost through the negligence of attorney. WI–122
Might be allowed, on proper showing, in lieu of appeal, when the lat-
ter was not filed in time. IV-226
Appeal may be allowed in lieu of, where the appeal was delayed on
account of temporary closing of local office. II–211
Where the application is an appeal, in effect, it may be treated as
such. W–392
May be granted, if it appears that the applicant is entitled to relief,
though he may have failed to appeal in time. VIII–423
Will not be granted unless the right of appeal has been denied and
such denial results in serious injury to the applicant. X–491
Will not be granted if the right of appeal is not wrongfully denied,
unless the facts set forth show that the applicant is entitled to
relief under the supervisory authority of the Secretary. X-572
Will not lie where the applicant has suffered no material injury, or
where the petition fails to allege such an injury.
III–183, 594; IV—28, 277, 559; VIII-485; X-159
Application will not be granted if substantial justice has been done,
though the proceedings may have been defective and informal.
•. - IX—170
Not granted, if on the showing made it is apparent that the appli-
cant's appeal if before the Department would be dismissed. VI—315
The Secretary may issue the writ to the local office in a case that
calls for such action. X–689
Will lie to review an order for a hearing. W–175
90 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
Certiorari—Continued.
To review an order of the Commissioner directing a hearing will not
be granted unless a clear abuse of discretion shown.
III–530; x–250, 491
Discretionary authority of the Commissioner will not be controlled by
the Department in the absence of an apparent abuse.
V–412; Ix–530, 626, 633
Supervisory authority of the Secretary should be invoked by, when
an abuse of the Commissioner's discretionary authority is alleged.
IX—5.30
Will not lie to review an interlocutory order of the local office where
the ordinary methods of procedure afford relief. X–689
Supervisory authority may be exercised on motion for review of a
decision denying the Writ. VIII–423
The supervisory authority of the Department is exercised under cer.
tain rules formulated to avoid confusion in practice. VIII–396
Supervisory authority not exercised except upon grounds appealing
to executive discretion. I–630
Does not lie to correct errors arising from negligence of parties. I–570
Will not be granted upon allegation by a stranger that contest was
initiated for speculative purposes. II–67
Granted where it appears that the Whole case was not before the
Commissioner. IV—31
Rule of June 19, 1885, requiring application to be filed in General
Land Office. III–595
Cherokee Nation.
Courts of, recognized as courts of record. IV—j35
Circulars. See Tables of, page 63; also Statutes.
Intended to be in harmony With the law and general rules of prac-
tice. - W–671
Regulations provided by, authoritative after promulgation. W–134
In conformity with the statutes have all the force and effect of law.
II–709; V-169; v1–111; Ix–86, 189,284, 353.
Regulations made by, will not be permitted to defeat a statutory
right. II–283; V-429
Citizenship. (See Alien, Naturalization.)
Proof of, in case of entry, sufficient where it follows the statute.
º III–606; IV-190; VI-620
Voting not conclusive evidence of, but raises a presumption, which
may not be accepted in the absence of proof to the contrary.
IX—173
Secondary evidence of, accepted. WI–631
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 91
Claims. (See Accounts.)
Made under a statute must be brought strictly within the statute. II–79
Can not be made by mere words, without attempt to reduce to pos-
session land already another's possession by color of law.
II--186,637
He who takes the initial step, if it is followed up to patent, is deemed
to have acquired the better right to the premises.
I-405; II–167; IV—582; VI—631; IX—443; x–228
Coal Lands. (See Application, subtitle No. II; Mineral Land.)
Sale of, circular of July 31, 1882. I–687
And iron lands in Alabama, circular of April 9, 1883. I–655
Coal lands are not mineral lands within the meaning of the act of
June 3, 1878 (timber cutting). II–827
Prior to the passage of the act of March 3, 1883, was open to entry
and private sale the same as agricultural land, subject only to
certain limitations as to price and quantity. (Alabama.) WI–493
Proof as to character of land must show the actual production of
mineral. V-126
Proof that adjoining lands have produced coal not sufficient. V-126
There is no authority for segregating the coal from other land within
a legal subdivision. III–65
Must be entered by legal subdivisions. III–65
An entry made under section 2347, Revised Statutes, must be re-
stricted to contiguous tracts. VII–172
Entry embracing non-contiguous tracts, made in good faith, under
the existing practice, may be patented as made, or amended so as
to take contiguous tracts. VII–577
A filing appropriates the land and bars subsequent applications.
II–728
Failure to file declaratory statement within sixty days after date of
actual possession, and make payment within one year from the ex-
piration of the time for filing renders the land subject to the entry
of another who has complied with the law. X-160
Failure to make proof and payment within the statutory period does
not forfeit the right of purchase in the absence of an adverse
right. X-508
On failure to make proof and payment within the statutory period the
filing should be canceled, if, after due notice, the claimant does
not comply with the law. X-508
Prior possession, without filing, will not avail as against an adverse
claimant who has complied with the law. IW–96
The declaratory statement and affidavit must be made by the appli-
cant himself; subsequently certain proofs and acts may be made
by an agent; where the declaration was improperly made by an
agent, in the absence of adverse filing or conflict it may be made
nunc pro tune. - II–735
92 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS,
Coal Lands—Continued.
Though the statute provides that but one entry shall be made by the
same person, said prohibition does not relate to the declaratory
filing, as is the case in the prečmption laws. VII–181
A second declaratory statement can not be filed in the absence of a
valid reason for abandoning the first. x–539
Second filing for same tract not allowed to one who has failed to
make proof and payment within the statutory period. X-508
Second declaratory statement authorized as of the date made,
though filed without authority therefor. VII–181
Declaratory statements for, may be filed on sections 16 and 36, with
opportunity to the State (Colorado) to be heard. VII–490
Only one entry allowed to the same person or association.
v1-371; VIII–140
Each member of the association must show qualification. W–224
The law requires that no member of a company shall be interested in
other land claimed or owned under the coal law at date of the
entry. II–729
Entry must be made in good faith and not for the benefit of another.
- X-160
Entry of, made for the benefit of another is illegal and must be can.
celed. VII–422
Procured in the name of qualified person, but for the benefit of an
association, invalid. tº WI–371
Where one files and assigns to a company, the company may enter as
assignees. II–728
Entry voidable for illegality, may be passed to patent for the benefit
of a transferee in view of the price paid for the land, and the fact
that repayment can not be allowed. VIII–140
Cash entry of, may be amended after patent, when the mistake was
caused by the indistinct marks at Section corners. VIII–303
In entry of, proof of citizenship is sufficient if made in conformity
with the regulations prescribed for carrying into effect the law
providing for the sale of such lands. WI–620
A prior possessory right, set up to defeat a private entry of coal
land, must rest upon actual and bona fide occupation of the land.
IX-15
Fntry of, disallowed as inconsistent with original claim. W–224
Proximity to a city does not affect claim. W-126
Covered by a homestead entry on March 3, 1883, must be publicly
offered on the cancellation of such entry (Alabama). IV-367
That coal may be found upon land claimed by a prečmptor, is im-
material if such mines are not known at date of entry. III–169
Status of, at date of proof and payment, with respect to distance
from a completed railroad determines the price.
I-540; II-730; x–422
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 93
Coal Lands—Continued.
Price of, within fifteen miles of a completed railroad, is not affected
by the fact that there is an inaccessible range of mountains be-
tween the lands and the railroad. w II–733
Where the public surveys were erroneously extended over part of the
Ute Reservation (west of the one hundred and seventh meridian),
and persons went upon the land and filed prior or subsequently
to its suspension from sale on October 7, 1880, they were tres-
passers until the act of July 28, 1882, legalized their occupancy;
the completion of a railroad meanwhile within fifteen miles of the
land enhanced its value. II–733
Colorado. (See School Lands; States and Territories.)
Commissioner of the General Land Office. (See Land Department.)
Commutation. (See Entry and Final Proof, Subtitles Homestead ;
also Homestead and Residence.)
Contest. (See Affidavit; Application; Evidence; Jurisdiction; Practice.)
I. GENERALLY.
II. FOR, WHAT.
III. CHARGE.
IV. INITIATION OF.
W. DEATH OF PARTY.
VI. INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT.
VII. SECOND.
VIII. SPECULATIVE.
IX. DESERT LAND.
X. HOMESTEAD.
XI. PREßMPTION.
YII. SWAMP LAND.
XIII. TIMBER, CULTURE.
I. GENERALLY.
Docket of, to be kept in the local office (circular of December 18,
1885). WI-12
Should be noted on tract book. W–597
Pendency of, precludes disposition of the land on the application of
a third party. II–55; IX—578
Local officers no authority to order a hearing involving an entry on
which final certificate has issued. X-694
No rights secured under a hearing ordered by the local office without
authority. X-694
Withdrawal of, by attorney, conclusive. IV-267
Initiation of, a waiver of pending appeal. W-350
94 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
I. GENER ALLY —Continued.
Distinguished from proceedings on protest. II-581; III–399; VI-765
Should be re-instated where it was dismissed in the absence of the
contestant and said absence was through the fault of the defend-
ant. - VII–60
The contestant may dismiss the contest at the local office while it is
pending on appeal (by the contestee). II–298
A motion for withdrawal, at or before day of hearing, is an interloc-
utory proceeding, and will be decided on the day of the hearing; if
the contestant does not appear he will be regarded as in default.
II–218
An amicable agreement (division of the land) settling the controversy
should not be overthrown by a technical violation of a rule of prac-
tice. II–257
Avoided by mutual concessions. W–119
Entryman must comply with the law during the pendency of.
V-104; V1–688; IX—24; x–618
Hearing ordered as to status of land does not involve the applicant’s
Qualifications to enter. III–253
In the absence from the record of contest papers, a contest may not
be assumed, to detriment of one complying with the law. II–57
Oppression under color of, not permitted. I–163
Is discontinued by agreement of counsel to indefinite postponement
of hearing. X—459
Right of, defeated by simultaneous relinquishment with declaratory
Statement. IV-363; x–139
Not defeated by a previous extra judicial opinion expressed by the
Commissioner on the partial and ex parte statement of the contes-
tee. IX—182
Should be dismissed, where the contestant fails to appear, either in
person or by counsel, on the day fixed for hearing. VII–252
Should not be dismissed, on motion of stranger to the record, prior
to the day of hearing and without notice. II–217, 220; IV-255
Should not be dismissed without notice, and prior to the day set for
hearing. VI—268
Should not be dismissed without notice. - IV—488
Contest will not be dismissed on motion of stranger to the record
alleging initiation for speculative purposes, and he has no right of
appeal nor ground for a writ of certiorari. II–68
Should not be dismissed if prima facie case is made out.
v–3; v1–682
Apparent error in allowing, may be explained by testimony, but not
taken advantage of by Stranger to the record. III–531
Failure to serve notice of, and the initiation of new proceedings, is an
abandonment of the first, and warrants the dismissal thereof.
X–268
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 95
I. GENERALLY-Continued.
A charge of bad faith against a claimant finds corroboration in his
unexplained failure to testify in support of his claim. IX—175
Ea: parte showing, without notice to the entryman, will not justify
cancellation. IX—522
Local officers may inspect the land involved after due notice to the
parties and during the trial. VI–626; VIII–38
When decision against a party is final, he becomes a stranger in the
case, though with the right to see that judgment is properly exe-
cuted. II–595
Party without interest may institute contest against forfeited or
abandoned homestead or timber-culture claims, but not against
preemptions. II–219
II. FOR WHAT.
Right of, as against any statuatory claim to land. IX—332
Will lie against an entry of Kansas Indian trust land for non-com-
pliance with law or other sufficient cause. IX—329
Purchase of homestead improvements gives no preferred right of con-
teSt. II–62
Not allowed to the holder of a relinquishment. W–5
Not required to call attention to irregularities in final proof, a pro-
test sufficient. IX—49.5
Proceedings initiated by one claiming a superior right to the land
are in the nature of a contest, and must be governed by the rules
provided therefor. VIII–493
A hearing on protest against final proofs (prečmption) does not in-
itiate a COInteSt. II–581; III–399
May be allowed where the life of the entry has expired without final
proof, or the entryman may be called upon to show cause why his
entry should not be canceled. IX—287
On the ground that the entry was made while the land was in the
possession of another good under the general circular of 1879.
II–67
General charge of fraud not ground for. - IX—545
By issue raised, after final proof, as to compliance with the law.
tº IV-20
Preferred right of, awarded to conflicting entryman. IV—304 .
Local office may not direct, as between prečmptor and timber-cul-
ture claimant. I–481
Will lie for fraud or failure to comply with the law at any time be-
fore patent issues. III–142
III. CHARGE.
Affidavit of, in the nature of an information. VII–41
Affidavit of, in the nature of an information and not essential.
WI–299
96 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
III. CHARGE–Continued.
Contest based on verbal information will not be dismissed where no
objection was made at the hearing. III-310; IV-255
Jurisdiction not affected by want of formality in affidavit of contest.
W–657
Affidavit of, is in the nature of an information, and when accepted,
notice issued, and service made, jurisdiction is acquired. W–657
It is not the affidavit, but due notice to the settler, which vests juris-
diction in the local officers. II–58, 312; IV-255
Any question involving the sufficiency of the information, upon which
the local officers elected to proceed, disappears from the moment
that notice to the settler has been issued. -
- II-58,65; III–208,248,278
The sufficiency of a charge will not be considered if the question is
not raised before the submission of testimony. IX—255
After the trial has closed the defendant can not take advantage of
variance between the notice and affidavit of contest. I–114
The defendant only can object as to the sufficiency of the charge.
III–57; V-639
Objections to the affidavit of, can only be raised at the hearing
III–374; V–657
Informalities in, may be excepted to only on the day set for hearing
and then only by a party to the record; if not then excepted to,
they are to be regarded as waived; if a motion to dismiss therefor
be made, it should be granted, or an amendment of the affidavit
may be allowed II–217, 221
Objection to an affidavit of, is not waived by going to trial after such
objection is overruled. X—181
Local officers should carefully examine the contest papers, point out
their defects, and allow immediate amendment. II–260
Affidavit of, may be amended subject to intervening rights.
II–210; VII–452
Affidavit of, may not be amended after the intervention of an adverse
right. * IX-18
May be properly rejected if the affidavit of, is not corroborated.
VIII–446; Ix–427
Should not be allowed where the corroborating witness swears to the
facts set forth as true “to the best of his information and observa-
tion.” * I–140
After hearing and judgment against contestee on the merits by the
local officers, it is error to dismiss contest for want of the corrobo-
rating affidavit of one or more witnesses. II–61, 210, 312
The charge in a contest should be specific. III-378; IV-369; VII–452
In matters not specifically charged the issue is solely between the
entryman and the government. VII–408
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 97
III. CHARGE–Continued.
Failure of the specific charge leaves the issue as between the entry-
man and the government. IX—327
Not material that affidavit of, was executed before a person that sub-
sequently represented the contestant. VII–42
Affidavit of, not invalidated by omission of venue. W–12
The insertion by an attorney of the date of entry in a blank form for
contest, after the execution, is permissible. II–260
When accepted, the defendant is the only person entitled to complain
of irregularity in the application. VIII–241
IV. INITIATION OF.
Not initiated until issuance of notice, but the contestant, on filing
affidavit of, acquires a right to proceed against the entry that can
not be defeated by a subsequent relinquishment. X—302
Affidavit of, will be held to have been accepted on the date when
notice issues, where date of filing does not appear. WI–825
Not considered as initiated until the affidavit of is received and ac-
cepted. WI–825
Date when the affidavit of, is received and accepted determines
whether the contest is premature. VII–346
Though improperly received, may proceed in the absence of prior
adverse right. W–436, 446
May be rejected, if offered outside of the hours set apart for the filing
Of Such paperS. - VII–504
Affidavit of, received through the mail, and placed of record before
office hours, and prior to the opening of the office for business,
takes precedence over one filed on the opening of the office. IX—54
If a few seconds intervene between two applications to contest an
entry, precedence should be given to the one first actually received.
VIII–241
In case of conflicting applications for the right of, the only person
that can object to the award made is the unsuccessful applicant.
X–459
Not held as filed where the papers are placed in the hands of a special
agent by the contestant. WIL–212
The local officers must examine carefully all applications for contest,
and point out their defects. II–260
V. DEATH OF PARTY. (See Contestant.)
The death of the entryman, after appeal by him from an adverse de-
cision of the local office, does not abate proceedings. WI–483
The claimant not entitled to a dismissal of, on showing the contest-
ant's death as the Department may proceed against the entry.
VIII–598
10464—7
98 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
W. DEATH OF PARTY –Continued.
Death of the entryman prior to the day fixed for hearing is not
ground of dismissal, or suspension of proceedings, when the entry-
man has sold the land and the transferee is in court. X-624
Death of the entryman, after appeal by the contestant, does not de-
prive the Land Department of jurisdiction. WI–781
VI. INTEREST OF TEIE GOVERNMENT.
The government is a party in interest. I–77; II–95;
Iv–263, 462, 512; V-372, 395; v1–300; VII–394; x–19
Government has the right to appear in, and cross-examine witnesses,
or have the case continued. VIII–2
Whether fraud, illegality, or noncompliance with the law constitutes
the basis of coutest, the government is a party to the inquiry ; if
the suit is withdrawn the papers should be forwarded to the Gen-
eral Land Office for suitable action. III–120
The government is a party in interest, and entitled to a judgment on
the facts, however disclosed and whatever the rights of the parties
as against each other may be. IX—391
Though fraudulent, the government may take advantage of facts
proven. WI–27
Government may take advantage of evidence brought out in a con-
test, though on a point not charged in the affidavit of.
II–95, 97; VII–395
Withdrawal of the contestant will not prevent the Department from
considering the evidence and passing upon the rights of the entry-
man as between him and the government. V–40, 385; VII–394
On the withdrawal of a contestant the case is left as between the
government and the entry man. X–133
Failure of the contestant to appeal will not preclude the Department
from considering the evidence with the view to protecting the in-
terests of the government. VII–177
Failure to establish the specific charge, as laid in the affidavit of con-
test, leaves the case as between the entryman and the government.
IX—327
In matters not specially charged the issue is between the govern-
ment and the entryman. VII–40S
Though the government is indirectly a party, yet it will not of its
own motion cancel an entry where bad faith is not clearly shown.
IX–148
The government may, while dismissing the, institute proceedings on
its own motion. W–5S
Rights of third parties will not be considered in the disposition of a
withdrawal of suit filed by the contestant. III–301
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 99
VII. SECOND.
Two contests at the same time against the same land not allowed.
1–36; III–564, 565, 590
Affidavit of, though filed, not necessarily a bar to the subsequent
suit of another. III–569
A defective affidavit of contest (lacking corroborating affidavit) re-
turned by the local officers for amendment, and duly amended,
will be regarded as filed, so as to bar another contest. II–39
Not allowed until the first is finally adjudicated, except when the
first is illegal. II–216, 248,282,293,297
Second not allowed till final determination of first.
I–132, 155; II-295; IV-470
Second not barred by a contest illegal on its face. II–259
Affidavit for contest against an entry already involved in litigation
should be received, but no action taken thereon until the pending
case is determined. III–512; V-231, 263, 350, 435,
453; VII–26, 400, 423,430; IX—18, 227,490, 579
Within the terms of the circular issued on the ruling in the Bundy
case, and subsequently held void from inception no bar to second.
W–231
Second, raising new question may be filed, but should be held for
disposition of the pending case. Iv–99, 234,463, 529; VI-234
New charge by contestant must be held for termination of pending
C3, Sé. - IV—121
An affidavit of, filed pending the disposition of a prior contest, should
be received and held without further action until final determina-
tion of the prior suit; but the right of the second contestant will
be held to take effect by relation as of the date when his affidavit
of contest was filed. VI—5.30
Pending, attacked for fraud should be disposed of before proceeding
with second. IV—504
Rejected for illegality, but pending on appeal, bars proceeding under
second, though affidavit therefor may be filed. Iv–583, 589
No rights required by second, if the prior pending suit results in
cancellation. I–42
Second, not allowed on issues tried and determined in the first.
III–390; VIII–444; IX—217, 584; x–232,253, 318, 451
Withdrawal of, at or before hearing, treated as a default, and a bar
to second contest by the same party, on the same ground. I–163
Where contest is filed pending a prior contest and after relinquish-
ment of land, it is of no legal effect. II–619
Should not be allowed when the government has in its own interest
commenced proceedings against the entry. II–785; VIII–301,
573, 578; Ix–66, 211,490, 569
May be refused in the discretion of the Commissioner when the entry
in question is under investigation by a special agent. VIII–139
100 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONs.
VII. SECOND–Continued.
Begun during the pendency of government proceedings against the
entry, or while all adverse proceedings against such entries are
suspended by general order, confers no rights. X-657
Suspended on account of pending proceedings by the government,
takes effect as of the date filed on failure of such proceedings.
VIII–579
Not barred by rejection of commutation proof by the Commissioner
and the pendency of appeal from such action when the original
entry was not held for cancellation. WI–833
Not allowed whilst the question of the cancellation of an entry is
pending. II–134
As to the validity of an entry can not be entertained while the right
to make said entry is pending on appeal. IX—161
Election to proceed anew a waiver of rights acquired under former
suit. II–69; III–591
Suit abandoned by express waiver no bar to second. IV—3S2
May be attacked on charges of fraud or collusion. IV–490
504; V-360, 387
Good faith of a, may be inquired into on the hearing. VIII–248
Good faith of, is attacked, a hearing may be ordered on that issue.
X-114
Invalid on its face, and abandoned by the contestant, is no bar to
new proceedings by said contestant. X–268
The institution of a second, waives all rights that the contestant may
have had under the first. VII–346
May be brought by an unsuccessful contestant on new grounds, in
which the good faith of an intervening contest may be attacked.
- VII–468
Failure of local officers to enter or record a, and issue notice thereon,
will not render such contest subject to the intervening right of a
second contestant. X—210
Wrongful dismissal of, in the local office, and intervention of a sec-
ond, will not defeat rights under the first, if said dismissal was not
through any fault of the first contestant. WIL-129
A contestant may, if in good faith, dismiss a contest and commence
another against a different person. II–64
VIII. SPECULATIVE.
No rights required through speculative and fraudulent.
Iv–332; V–358; VI—25, 164, 530; x–250, 404.
No rights can be acquired or defeated through a fraudulent or col-
lusive. II–583; IX—225, 314.
If illegal no preference right is acquired thereby. III–341.
Is speculative if brought for the purpose of Securing a speculative
entry. WIII–248.
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 101
VIII. SPECULATIVE–Continued.
Brought in collusion with the contestee, for the purpose of defeating
justice, will be summarily dismissed. II–259.
One person may at the same time contest one homestead and one
timber-culture entry; or he may contest two timber-culture en-
tries, if he is qualified and intends to make a homestead and a
timber-culture entry. II–277.
Several, by same party indicative of speculative intent. V-358, 387.
Where one in good faith withdraws one contest he may initiate an-
other against another person and other land. II–64.
The procurement of a friendly suit may be proven in support of the
charge that the entry was fraudulent. WI–268.
Initiation of, and withdrawal before trial indicates bad faith. V-360.
IX. DIESERT LAND.
Against desert entry, if successful, secures the rights conferred upon
contestants by the act of May 14, 1880. III–69;
V-694, 708; VI-1, 572; VII–186.
Against desert entries follows the practice in preemption contests.
WI-1.
Forfeiture not warranted except on a clear preponderance of the evi.
dence. IX—6.
Must fail if the default is cured prior to notice, and such action is
not induced by knowledge of the impending suit, but is the result
of a previous bona fide intent. X—657.
On the ground of non-compliance with law, filed during the pend-
ency of the general order of February 7, 1882, suspending such
proceedings, confers no right. X—657.
X. HOMESTEAD.
Application for the land is not required.
II–40, 65; III–209; IV-424, 462
Does not require that the contestant should assert a claim to the
land involved. II–219; VIII–584
May be instituted by alien. V–259
Against the entry of a deceased homesteader, wherein the decedent
is made the sole party defendant, is a nullity, and the rights of the
real parties in interest are not affected thereby. IX—308
Heirs of deceased entryman must be made parties defendant.
WI–241
Offering a relinquishment for sale is not a sufficient ground of con-
teSt. II–40; IV—553
May be properly entertained upon any charge affecting the legality
of the claim. IX-209
Local office may order, on charge of illegality. IV–461
Charging the incompetency of the entry inan, under the law, to per-
fect his entry, is a good ground for. X--274
102 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
X. HOMESTEAD–Continued.
Local office may order a hearing to determine the right of a home-
stead applicant as against a railroad grant. X–281
Will lie against soldier's homestead for failure to settle, improve,
and enter within six months after filing, and the successful con-
testant has a preferred right of entry. III–17
Soldier's homestead not subject to, for failure to settle and improve
within six months from filing when initiated prior to December 15,
1882. III–213
By prečmptor, to clear record of subsequent homestead claim, will
not be allowed. II–584
Compliance with law pending, subject of another hearing. WI–28
Based on a charge of noncompliance with law in the matter of resi-
dence and improvements should not be entertained where the
entry is suspended on account of a defective survey. X–297
For abandonment will not lie until the expiration of six months after
entry, exclusive of the day of entry. II–151
For abandonment will not lie until the expiration of six months and
one day after entry, exclusive of the day of entry. (Baxter v.
Cross.) - II–69
The rule in Baxter v. Cross governs in all cases after it was rendered.
III–15
On the charges of abandonment, sale, and relinquishment not pre-
mature, though within less than six months after entry. V–262
A charge of abandonment will not lie against a homestead claimant
prior to the allowance of his application to enter. X-510
The rule that a contest is premature if begun before the expiration of
six months and a day after entry can only be invoked by the con-
teStee. VIII–40ſ)
Though premature, may be carried to cancellation in the absence of
objection or appeal. IV—552
Initiation of, prior to the expiration of the six months allowed for
establishment of residence, will not prevent cancellation if the
proof, submitted after such period, shows permanent abandonment.
X-211
To sustain the charge of abandonment, it must be shown that such
abandonment has continued for six months, and the complaint
must So allege. X-105
Where abandonment and change of residence are charged, and the
notice cites the entryman to respond to the charge of abandon-
ment, the variance is not such as to prejudice the rights of the
entryman. X–294
A charge of abandonment, change of residence, and failure to settle,
is not an admission that residence has been established, and does
not estop the contestant from proving failure to establish residence
as required by law. X-346
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS, 103
X. HOMESTEAD–Continued.
On the ground of abandonment should show that the alleged aban-
donment was prior to final entry. X-556
For abandonment against settlers absent under act of June 4, 1880
(destruction of crops), would not lie until April 1, 1882. II–28
It is competent for a contestant, alleging abandonment prior to April
1, 1882, to show that the settler did not meet with a loss or failure
of crops. II–111
Of divorced wife against the homestead entry of her former husband
on the ground of abandonment must fail where it appears that his
family lived upon the land during his absence and that she forci-
bly retained possession on his return thereto. VII–35
Of divorced wife against former husband's claim for abandonment
permissible. I–89
Only the wife shall be heard to show her husband's desertion of her
in proof of abandonment. II–81; VII–35
In a contest on the ground of fraudulent inception or abandonment,
priority of settlement can not be considered. II–119, 620
Absence of entryman for five months prior to contest working at his
trade, with occasional returns to the land, and a relinquishment
executed, but not filed, are, in view of other evidences of good faith,
not proof of abandonment. II–27
Charging abandonment and failure to maintain residence must fail
where the entryman dies within less than six months after entry
and prior to establishment of residence, but the heirs thereafter cul-
tivate and improve the land. : IX—31
Under section 2297, R. S., it is not essential that “abandonment”
for more than six months “immediately preceding ” the contest
should be specifically charged. IX—25.5
Proof that the claimant has actually changed his residence or abandon-
ed the land for more than six months at “any time” warrants an
order of cancellation, if the default has not been cured. IX-255
On the charge of abandonment may be entertained following a suit
as to priority of right. - W–149
Question of abandonment under sec. 2297, R. S., is an issue between
the government and the settler; on proof of, the land reverts to
the United States; sec. 2, act of May 14, 1880, gives a preferred
right to the successful contestant of an entry. II–60
Homestead entry not the proper subject of, Seven years after date of
entry. I–112
Will lie against homestead entry after the expiration of seven years
from date of entry. -- III–136; V-229
May be entertained, though not begun until after the expiration of
five years from date of entry. X–111
Filed five years after entry is not sufficient, if confined to the words
of section 2297, R. S., but should set forth the specific default and
that it has not been cured. IX—530
104 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
X. HOMESTEAD–Continued.
Against homestead entry for want of residence must follow sec. 2297
R. S. III–560
Must fail if the entryman in good faith cures his default before notice
is served. VII–198; Ix–299, 531
Must fail if the default charged is in good faith cured prior to service
of notice, and such action of the claimant is not induced by the
filing of the contest. IX—153
Actual knowledge of an impending contest will not prejudice the
claimant if his subsequent compliance with law is in pursuance of a
previous bona fide intent. - IX—299
Against a final entry on the ground that the entryman is not a citizen
must fail, if the defect is cured prior to notice, and such action is
not induced by the initiation of. x–474
On the ground of non-compliance against an entry made for the minor
heirs of a deceased soldier or seaman, must fail if the land is culti-
wated and improved for five years succeeding date of entry.
x–482, 528
Charging want of prerequisite residence in filing preliminary affi-
davit, and alleging an adverse priority, must fail if such priority is
not established. IX–20
Acts performed after the initiation of, will not relieve the entryman
of the consequence of non-compliance with law prior thereto. X-133
An offer to sell the land may be proven in support of the charge that
the entry was speculative and fraudulent. VI—268
The hardship resulting from an order of cancellation does not warrant
the Department in ignoring the requirements of law. VII–584
Failure to establish residence within six months from date of entry
warrants cancellation if the default is not cured prior to. IX—523
A homestead claim, set up to defeat the entry of another, will be can-
celed if the evidence shows noncompliance with law. WI–294
An honest settler's rights may not be defeated on technical and spec-
ulative grounds. II–163
Pending will not bar relinquishment and right to make new entry
under the act of March 3, 1879. I–93
XI. PREEMBTION.
Should not be allowed against a prečmption claim before offer to
make final proof. I-469; III–517; IV—134; V–176; Ix–92
Against prečmption claims should only be allowed in exceptional
:ases prior to the offer of final proof. II–583; IV-235; VII–126.
After hearing and decision on the merits it is too late for the pre-
emptor to suggest that the contest is premature. IV—236
Proceedings on offer to make final proof obviate the necessity of
formal contest in case of conflicting prečmption claims. III–112
By a prečmptor, to clear the record of a prior prečmption claim, will
be allowed in exceptional cases only. II–583
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 105
XI. PREEMPTION.—Continued.
Not allowed against a filing by a stranger to the record. I-435, 446
Prečmption claim, if put in issue, may be canceled before final proof
is offered. e W–260
By a subsequent adverse claimant will lie against a prečmptor for
non-compliance with requirements. II–596
Non-appearance under notice of intention to make final proof does
not bar. III–142
On allegation of fraud a hearing will be had even after approval of
final proof and allowance of entry. III–54
On death of prečmptor, with contest pending, the case will be dis-
posed of as though the original parties were still existing. III–544
Charge of abandonment will not lie on the ground of failure to estab-
lish and maintain residence prior to the allowance of application
to file declaratory statement. X-616
Abandonment must be proved affirmatively by a contestant alleging
it. II–625
XII. SWAMP LAND.
Will lie against a selection of swamp land. W–31
Against a swamp selection, if successful, may secure a right of entry.
IV—497
XIII. TIMBER CULTURE.
Forms for use in beginning. I—653
Rules governing homestead are applicable in timber culture. I–132
Must be against the heirs or legal representatives of a deceased en-
tryman. III–592; V–398; VIII–452
The devisee of a deceased entryman a party defendant. VIII–452
Against the entry of a deceased entryman, where the decedent is
made the sole party defendant, is a nullity and must be dismissed.
X-152
Death of the entryman, before initiation of, being shown, the con-
testant should by amendment and due notice make the heirs par-
ties, and a continuance for such purpose should be allowed. x–261
Right of amendment, on suggestion of the entryman's death, not de-
feated by an intervening. X—261
Contestant need not be a party in interest. II–219
No authority for, in the absence of application to enter.
I-152, 160, 626; II–290; III–513, 57.1
Section 3, act of June 14, 1878, not in conflict with section 2, act of
May 14, 1880. A contestant under the latter law is defined by the
earlier. 1–160, 626
Circular of December 20, 1882, issued on the Bundy-Livingston ruling.
I–651
Circular issued under Bartlett-Dudley decision, February 13, 1883.
I-652
106 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
XIII. TIMBER CULTURE—Continued.
The omission to file an application for the land in a timber-culture
contest may be remedied prior to or at the hearing, if no other right
has intervened. II–296, 319
Tender of application to enter by the contestant held sufficient to
validate subsequent proceedings. II–245
Second allowed, where first was dismissed under the rule in Bundy's
case, with premission to use on stipulation evidence already taken.
I—160
The contestant having filed application to enter before the dismissal
of his contest is awarded a new contest from the date of such filing
in the absence of an intervening adverse right. III–95
Right of, not defeated by defective application to enter when an offer
to amend at the hearing was made. W–211
If jurisdiction is lawfully acquired, it can not be divested by the sub-
sequent act of the contestant, whereby he becomes disqualified to
enter the land under the application filed with his contest. V-684
Held good as it followed the practice in force, and there was an ap-
plication to enter prior to the order of dismissal IV—587
Prosecuted to final judgment prior to the Bundy decision not affected
thereby. IV—246
In the absence of objection from the defendants, the want of formal
application to enter will be held as though waived. IV—241
Against timber-culture entry, must show contestant’s qualifications
for entry. II–292
On initiation of, tender of entry fees and commissions (with applica-
tion to enter) not required. W–684
Bundy v. Livingston overruled in General Circular of June 27, 1887.
WI–284
Application to enter not required at initiation of. VII–9; x–398
Not by one who has exhausted his rights under homestead and tim-
ber-culture laws. II–276
The right of, against a timber-culture entry may be exercised by an
applicant for the land under the prečmption law (overrules Buttery
v. Sprout, 2 L. D., 293.) W–591
Follows right of entry in case of default by the entryman. IV—540
At the moment of default the land is open to entry by the first legal
claimant, notwithstanding that an illegal contest is pending against
it. II–266, 283, 297, 318
To clear the record is of the nature of action in rem. IV—540
An allegation of offer to sell the land not sufficient ground for.
Iv–370; v-314; VI-268; VII–262
Sale and relinquishment good grounds for. IV—245,
522; VIII–294; Ix–565
A general allegation of non-compliance will not avail where the spe-
cific charge fails. VII–408
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. i07
XIII. TIMBER CULTURE–Continued.
Charge of failure to raise more than one thousand trees held sufficient,
being made eight years after entry. III–419
Case stated where the charge “wholly abandoned” is held sufficient,
III–377
The allegation “the land is of the class that will not produce timber"
is not a good ground of. WI–578
A charge of failure to plant the required number of trees the third
year, and failure to cultivate those planted, sufficient. WI–299
False allegation in preliminary affidavit ground for. IV—239
Will lie against timber-culture entry for illegality. II–290, 304;
III–185
For illegal inception may be initiated without special authority of the
Commissioner. II–302; IV—239, 492
That an entry is held for the benefit of another is a good ground of.
s WI–791
The possessor of a relinquishment is not entitled to, but should file
the relinquishment and apply to enter. III–150
Will not lie against an entry after the filing of a relinquishment. .
II–304, 327
Will not lie against an entry not of record in the local office, and
under which no right was ever asserted where the land was subse.
Quently in good faith entered by another. X–59
For non-compliance with the law not entertained before the expira.
tion of one year from entry. IV—241
A charge of non-compliance with law made prior to the expiration
of the first year after entry is premature, and does not authorize
proceedings against the entry. - X–268.
An allegation of non-compliance with law will not lie when made
prior to the expiration of the year in which it is alleged to have
occurred. VII–452; IX—148
Affidavit of contest against timber culture entry must be executed
after the expiration of the year in which the failure is charged.
II–249
May be entertained, though affidavit of was filed before the expira-
tion of the period covered by the charge, where the notice was
served after such period. WI–299.
Entry perfected July 5, 1882, contest affidavit filed July 5, 1884,
charging failure to break requisite ten acres: Held, not premature,
nor in abridgment of entryman's defense. WI-795
An extension of time under section 2, act of June 14, 1878, does not
during its existence protect the entry from. Ix—350; X-302
A stranger to the record can not be heard to allege that a contest is
premature. X-108
Affidavit of, should charge the continuance of the default alleged.
II—301; IV—84; X—593
108 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
XIII. TIMIBER CLJLTURE–Continued.
An allegation as to the existence and continuance of default is suffi-
cient, if such default is alleged to exist at the time the affidavit of
contest is made. WI–530
Affidavit of, must show the continuance of the default alleged ; but
leave to amend may be given where the complaint is defective in
this particular. X–181
A charge that no part of the first five acres was cultivated the fourth
year, and that there has been no cultivation of any portion of the
tract, is equivalent to an allegation that the default continues to
exist. IX—644
Resting on specific charge as to one year does not include previous
years. W–329
Against timber-culture entry, alleging abandonment for the year
next preceding, and failure to cultivate as required, and to break
five acres, is sufficient. II–220
Will not lie when default is cured prior to initiation of suit.
1–142, 146; II—262, 302; IV—368,494; VI—825; VII–440; x–591
Must fail, if the entryman prior to the initiation thereof commences
in good faith to cure the default. II–263; IX-644; X-232, 373
Must fail, if the default charged is cured before service of notice.
VIII–552
Good faith an important element in considering evidence as to com-
pliance with law between the dates of filing affidavit of contest
and service of notice. - VIII–552
An attempt to cure a default, before service of notice, can not be
accepted as evidence of good faith, if such action is induced by
the impending contest. IX—289
Should be dismissed, when the default charged was not due to the
neglect or bad faith of the entryman, and was cured on the day
that notice issued for publication. VII–8
The entryman’s good faith may be properly considered. VI-755;
VII–331, 365, 440, 441, 468
Charging speculative entry should clearly demonstrate the fact to
warrant cancellation, especially when brought after years of labor
upon the land. WI–61()
Should not be sustained unless substantial non-compliance is shown
under a specific charge. IX–148
Clear preponderance of evidence required to warrant judgment of
forfeiture. 1–129, 153; VI—660; VII-373
Failing on the issue joined, the contestant will not be heard to say
that the entryman can not show compliance with the law in the
statutory period. II–305; X-232
The acts or omissions of the entryman after date of initiation of the
contest do not affect the contestant's rights. II–280
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 109
XIII. TIMBER, CULTURE–Continued.
On the ground that the land is not “devoid of timber,” must fail, if
it appears that the entry was allowed in accordance with the
rulings then in force. X—190
Proof of an offer to sell does not in itself justify a conclusion that the
entry was not made in good faith. X–20
Proof of all offer to sell and conditional acceptance thereof will not
authorize cancellation. IX-609
Evidence showing contract of sale, made after three years’ compli-
ance with law, does not establish the charge that the entry was
made with a speculative intent. IX—327
Execution of power of attorney containing, among other things,
authority to sell, is not sufficient to warrant cancellation.
VII–493
Proof of sale, and removal from the land, of a small quantity of
stone, will not warrant cancellation. X–20
Charging non-compliance with law must fail if it appears that the
default is due to the wrongful possession of the land by the con-
teStant. X—318
The contestant can not be heard to complain of the entryman’s fail-
ure to comply with the law, if such failure is the result of the
wrongful act of the contestant. X–585
Contestant is estopped from charging non-compliance with law
where he, as agent, had undertaken to fulfill the requirements of
the law. IV—205; VII–24
Charges of non-compliance with law must fail if it is shown that the
alleged failure was due to the illegal and adverse possession of
another. X–57
Failure to break the full amount required the first year does not
necessarily call for cancellation, if good faith is manifest. VI—829
Cancellation not warranted by failure to break the requisite number
of acres, where the entryman supposed that he had complied with
the law, and made good the deficiency as soon as discovered.
IX—180
Slight deficiency in breaking will not justify cancellation.
VII–365, 441
Failure to break the requisite acreage within the statutory period
may be excused where it is not the result of negligence, and the
default is in good faith cured as soon as possible, though not till
after the innitiation of. X-153
That part of the breaking, through mistake, is not on the land en-
tered, does not call for cancellation. X-585
Slight deficiency in acreage will not justify cancellation where a
greater number of trees are growing on the land than is required
on the statutory ten acres at final proof. IX—567
110 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
XIII. TIMBER, CULTURE–Continued.
Failure to secure a growth of trees does not call for cancellation, if
such failure is not due to negligence. X-591
Charging failure to plant the requisite acreage within the statutory
period must fail, if such default is solely due to the unusual in-
clemency of the weather. .. X—470
Must be dismissed, although the requisite number of trees are not
shown, where the entryman has for a number of years complied
with the law in good faith, and the default is not attributable to
negligence. VII–27
failure to secure the required growth within the statutory period
casts upon the defendant the burden of showing that such failure
was without fault on his part. VII–47, 63
Where the rights of a third party are not involved the government
will not insist on forfeiture unless bad faith is shown. VII–89;
X–107
Based on a charge of non-compliance with law may be defended by
an intervening entryman claiming under a relinquishment. X—302
Plea of sickness not a good defense against a charge of non-compli-
ance with law if the claimant was in default at the time he was
disabled for further compliance. X—352
Cancellation warranted where, after the lapse of six years, no trees
are growing on the land and no excuse is offered for such failure.
VII–61
Not a good defense that the default was the result of the negligence
of entryman’s agent. I–120; IV-493; VII-63; x–341
Proof of “ plowing ” is an answer to the charge of failure to “break.”
WI–669
Failure to cultivate second year's planting being shown, the entry-
man, in the absence of bad faith, permitted to amend his entry,
which covered eighty acres, by relinquishing forty acres thereof.
WI–689
An entryman may declare his intentions, make timber-culture entry,
and absent himself from the country for two years or more without
forfeiting the entry, provided that he returns and that the law is
complied with. II–251
Contestant. (See Application ; Contest, Relimquishment.)
I. GENERALLY.
II. PREFERENCE RIGHT.
I. GENERALLY.
Right of, first regulated by the act of May 14, 1880. I–76; II–60
Generally must be a party in interest. II–219
Distinction between “protestant” and. WI–763
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 111
I. GENERALLY –Continued.
Protestant, by complying with the law and regulations, can secure
the rights of a. WI–763
Can not transfer right of contest. I–76
Motive of, in attacking entry not material to defense. W–296
Must sustain the burden of proof VII–373
Right of the, dependent upon the successful issue of the contest.
V–248; VIII–139, 357
Right of, dependent upon status of land at date of contest. IX-161
Right of the successful, rests upon the judgment and not upon the
clerical act of cancellation. IV-248
Is not entitled to a judgment of cancellation unless he shows a sub-
stantial non-compliance with law in a matter specifically alleged.
IX–148
Right of the, must depend on his ability to sustain the charge, when
the entry is canceled on intervening relinquishment not the result
of the COntest. VII–442
Right of, not affected by the failure of the local office to act upon the
application to contest. IX—18
Right of, not defeated by a fraudulent intervening contest. IX—314
Right of a, not defeated by intervening claims. IX—269
Right of second, relates back to the date of filing contest affidavit.
Iv–506; VI-530
Right of second, can not be defeated by curing the default charged,
after contest is filed, and pending the disposition of a prior fraud-
ulent and collusive contest. VI—5.30
Second, can not question, collaterally, the sufficiency of the evidence
on which a judgment of cancellation was rendered in the prior con-
test against the same entry. VII–400
Withdrawal of, on appeal will not prevent action of the Department
on the evidence. V–40, 385
Waiving his rights leaves the case as between the entryman and the
government. III–408
Personal attendance of, at hearing presumptively essential, and the
claimant can not take advantage of his absence, where it was due
to the fault of said claimant. - VII–60
Failure to appear at hearing fatal to his contest. III–565
Circular instructions of the Land Department (that entry on land in
the possession of a settler is invalid) in force at initiation of a con-
test, though subsequently revoked, protect the contestant. II-66
Notice of cancellation to the successful, by unregistered letter, is not
sufficient. VII–335; VIII–477
Notice of cancellation to the attorney of, is sufficient.
III–409; Ix–70, 478; x–324
Notice of cancellation to attorney, erroneously entered of record, is
not notice to the. WI–509
112 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
I. GENERALLY-Continued.
Right of, to proceed against an entry not impaired by a relinquish-
ment accompanied by an application to enter filed after initiation
of contest. X—256
No rights of, defeated by a relinquishment filed pending contest.
Ix–440; x–105, 302
Right of, not defeated by an intervening entry based upon a relin-
Quishment filed pending contest. X—398
The failure of one holding a relinquishment to file the same until
after the initiation of contest by another will not defeat or impair
the right of the contestant. IX—269
In case of relinquishment pending contest, entry may be made subject
to the right of contestant. sº III–546
Right of, is personal, and on his death the question at issue is be-
tween the government and the entryman. III–5;
v–369; v1–93, 755; VII–491; VIII–598
With the death of, the right conferred by the act of May 14, 1880,
terminates. IX—2S7
Right of the, is only held personal and terminating with his death,
where he has no other than the preference right of a successful
COInteStant. VIII–405
Qualification of, to enter not required in case of attack upon home-
stead entry. III–18; IV—185; V-259, 296
Contestant's failure to file affidavit as to qualification can not be set
up for the first time On appeal. III–513
Rights of, defined and limited by the act of June 14, 1878. I–160
Right of timber culture, who applies to enter, depends upon estab-
lishment of default alleged. VIII–357
On timber-culture entry may acquire a preference right under the
act of May 14, 1880, though no application to enter is filed with
the contest. VII–9; x–398
Who is successful must make affidavit that he has not exhausted bis
right since filing application before his entry will be allowed.
III–360
Requiring the successful contestant of a timber-culture entry to file
a supplemental affidavit as to his qualification to enter, will not
impair rights under his application filed at the initiation of the
suit. VII—330
Of timber culture entry can not insist on forfeiture of entire entry
where only partial failure is shown, and bad faith does not exist.
* VI–689, 829
Of timber-culture entry estopped from setting up want of cultiva-
tion where he had charge of the land for that purpose. IV—205
Can not take advantage of evidence showing a default not specific-
ally charged where the specific charges have failed. WII–408
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 113
I. GENERALLY –Continued.
Can not insist on cancellation, because of some default not charged.
- VII–89
Should not be deprived of the results of his contest unless there are
controlling reasons why the entry should not be canceled. I–78
II. PREFERENCE RIGHT. (See Homestead, subtitle act of June
15, 1880.)
It is offered as the only adequate means of protecting the United
States against the illegal acquisition of public lands, and it is the
duty of the Land Department to encourage the policy. II–260
Is akin to the law granting to the informer a moiety of the penalty in
criminal cases; by acceptance of the information contestant ac-
Quires the right to furnish the proofs and obtain the reward.
- II–61, 167
Acquired by successful attack for fraud or illegality. IV—370,461
One who successfully contests a desert land entry is entitled to a
preference right of entry under the act of May 14, 1880. III–69;
V-694, 712; V1–1, 572, VII–186
The successful termination of a homestead contest, on any charge
affecting the legality of the claim, secures the right conferred by
the act of May 14, 1880. IX—209
May be secured by contest against an entry of Kansas Indian trust
land. IX—329
Not secured through a contest against a prečmption filing. II-581;
IX–92
Acquired by successful attack upon swamp selection. IV—497
May be secured as to the land finally excluded from an entry, allowed
for more than one hundred and sixty acres and contested for such
irregularity. VIII–205
Is not accorded for successful contest against timber-culture entry
for illegality. I–421
One who contests successfully an illegal timber culture entry acquires
a preferred right of entry. II–290, 304; III–185
Without the right of contest under the timber-culture law there can
be no preference right acquired. I–626
Contestant against timber-culture entry has a preferred right of entry
under section 2, act of May 14, 1880. II–323
Attaches where the contestant (timber-culture) has proved the charge,
though he failed to file application for the land. II–307, 319
Timber-culture contestant who seeks to take the land as a preémptor,
acquires no right (overruled, 5 L. D., 591). II–293
Is personal and can not be transferred. I–42, 76, 487;
VII–186, 491; x–560
Is a mere privilege, which the contestant may at any time waive.
II–41, 257, 323; IV—535
10464–8
114 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
II. PREFERENCE RIGHT-Continued. ſº
Waiver of, confers no right upon a third party as against the original
entryman. VII–381
May be waived, and after such waiver the land is subject to entry by
the first qualified applicant. V–293; x–560
The right of the successful contestant to waive is one with which the
Government has no concern. III–560
If sold may be filed without specific authority therefor from the con-
testant. t W–294
Waived by withdrawal of contest. W–453
Where waived by an amicable and executed agreement with a third
person, whose entry had been allowed pending the contest the
entries thereunder may be allowed to stand. II–257
Whether the contestant is entitled to, is a question that can only
arise on the attempt to exercise the right. Iv–393; VI-238; IX—391
Under the act of May 14, 1880, is not secured unless the cancellation
of the entry is caused by the contest. - Ix–193,211
Dependent upon ability to establish the charge against the entry.
I-104; VII–46; IX—440
Dependent upon success, and not to be defeated by relinquishment.
III–546
Awarded without respect to the allegations on which the contest was
initiated. I–145
Will not be affected by the contestant’s former relation to the land.
IV-19
None attaches, where the contest has been improperly brought.
II–285
Not dependent upon intention to use the same when bringing suit.
V—360
Not secured through a speculative contest. V–358;
VI–164, 288; VIII–248; IX—491; x–250
Can not be secured through a contest prosecuted in the name of an-
Other. VII–186
Not defeated because the entry was canceled on record evidence.
IV-461, 517; V-404
Not secured by one who simply avails himself of action already taken
by the government. WI–833
Not secured by furnishing information as basis for special agent's
report. WI–828
Not secured by a contest filed during the pendency of government
proceedings against the entry, if such entry is canceled as the result
of said proceedings. - IX-211, 569
One admitted as amicus curiæ is entitled to a preferred right of entry
under the act of May 14, 1880, if he procures a cancellation.
III–21
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 115
II. PREFERENCE RIGHT-Continued.
One who fails to appeal from a decision of the local office dismissing
his contest is not entitled to, in the event the entry under contest
is canceled on the evidence submitted. X–584
Not defeated by a charge of having attempted to mislead the local
office, where the charge was ignored by that office. VI–342
The right of a successful contestant against a timber-culture entry
is not affected by the possession of the defaulting entryman.
- IV-508
Not secured by breaking five acres of land while it is covered by the
uncanceled timber-culture entry of another. VII—352
Does not entitle the contestant to make private entry of a tract not
subject thereto. VIII–282
Can not be exercised on lands reported valuable for coal prior to the
act of March 3, 1883, and not thereafter offered. X-140
Where a contestant has obtained judgment in his favor by the local
officers or on appeal, which becomes final, his right of entry at-
taches at date said judgment becomes final, and, if duly exercised,
bars a purchaser (act of June 15, 1880) upon application subse-
Quently filed. II–164
Can not be defeated by purchase under the act of June 15, 1880,
made pending contest. Iv–580; V-230, 608; VI—446, 641;
- VII–381, 500; VIII–463, 579, 595; Ix–18; x–111, 410, 678
Not dependent upon qualification at date of bringing the contest.
IV—203
May be secured through contest against a homestead entry by alien
if qualified when the entry is canceled. W–259
Can not be asserted by one who has disqualified himself to make
entry prior to the final disposition of the contest. VII–542
Is not barred by relinquishment, and entry of another, pending the
COnteSt. II–265, 283
IDoes not operate to reserve the land during the period allowed for
the exercise of such right. I–162, 486
An entry made pending a preferred right, which the contestant re-
linquished while the question was on appeal, is allowed to stand.
II–323
The existence of, does not bar an application, which should be re-
ceived, subject to the preferred right. II–276, 321
Should not be exercised in the presence of an intervening entry until
after due action had on notice to the intervening entryman to show
cause why his entry should not be canceled.
VI-643; Ix–491; X-18, 41
Where the record shows an intervening entry, made after expiration
of, such entry should not be canceled without hearing. VI—509
116 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
II. PREFERENCE RIGHT-Continued.
On a general order to an intervening entryman to show cause why
his entry should not be canceled and the preferred right of the
contestant allowed, he may set up any charge involving the in-
validity of said right. X-250
Thirty days after the receipt of notice of cancellation within which
to exercise the preferred right of entry allowed.
* V–183; VII-553; X-41
Is lost by failure to use the same within the thirty days accorded by
the statute. V-115; Ix–70, 478; x–297
Failure of the local office to give notice of, does not prejudice the
Contestant. II–323
Of contestant against homestead entry may be exercised on part of
the land in contest and a contiguous tract; of contestant against
a timber culture entry is confined to land in contest, unless less
than one hundred and sixty acres, when an adjoining tract may be
included. II–289
Payment of the land office fees is a prerequisite to the right, and will
be presumed (on appeal) wherever the contrary does not appear.
II–323
A ruling that the contestant is not entitled to, in a decision ordering
a hearing, will not bar the subsequent assertion of such right,
though no appeal was taken from such decision. VIII–400
Continuance, (See Practice.)
Costs. (See Accounts; Fees ; Practice, subtitle costs.)
Court of Claims.
Jurisdiction of, to consider referred cases. IV-5, 14
Reference of cases to, discretionary with the Department. IV–443
Not an appellate court for reviewing decisions of the Department.
IV—443
Case pending before the General Land Office not referred to. IV—375
Cultivation. (See Final Proof, subtitles Nos. X, XII, and XIV; Home-
stead; Prečmption.)
Death. (See Evidence ; subtitles Nos. V and VI.)
Decision. (See Judgment ; Jurisdiction ; Land Department ; Res Ju-
dicata.)
In the preparation of, for the signature of the Secretary or Commis-
sioner, where prior opinions are cited, the reference should be to
the volumes published by the Department, if such opinions or
decisions are found therein. III–419
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 117
Decision—Continued.
Will not be made on hypothetical cases, or questions irregularly pre-
sented. II–765; IV—310,389, 393, 451; V-258; Ix–194
Of the local office are not effective until passed in review by the
General Iland Office. III–567; V-246
Declaratory Statement. (See Filing.)
Dedication. *
Of land for municipal uses under statutory proceedings divests the
government of title. X—375
Of land may be made by the United States. x–375
By the proceedings under the act of September 26, 1850, title was
passed to the village of Sault St. Marie of the land set apart for
cemetery purposes, and on the incorporation of the village said
title wested in the municipal authorities. X—375
Deed.
From husband to wife recognized as valid if authorized under the
laws of the State in which the land is situated.
IV—355, 432; VIII-502
Deposition. (See Evidence.)
Desert Land. (See Contest ; Entry, and Final Proof, subtitles Nos
XII and XI; Water Right.)
Circular regulations, June 27, 1887. W-708
Land which, one year with another, for a series of years, will not,
without irrigation, make a fair return to the careful, ordinarily
skillful, and industrious husbandman, is. II–19
Land which produces a crop, though an inferior one, whether of grass,
wheat, barley, or other crop to which the soil and climate are
adapted, which is a fair reward for the expense of producing it, is
not. II–19
Land which, without irrigation, fails year after year to return even
the seed, and which yields crops of grain of So poor a quality that
they must be cut for hay, is. II–20
Though it may appear that the productiveness is increased by irriga-
tion, such fact does not establish the desert character of land.
VII–425
Land that without irrigation will produce grass in paying quantities
is not subject to desert entry. II–18; IV—33; VIII–163; x–169
A tract bordering on a stream and containing living springs, and that
includes land that produces a natural growth of grass in paying
quantities and trees of native growth, is not subject to desert entry.
X–558
118 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
Desert Land—Continued.
The character of land embraced within an entry for lands lying along
a stream a proper subject for investigation. VII–180
Land upon which there is a natural growth of timber is not.
V–595; VII–425
A growth of mesquite trees will not exclude land from desert entry
if it appears that said land will not, without irrigation, produce an
agricultural crop. VI–662
Lands partly desert and partly agricultural can not be entered under
the desert act. IV–33
Clear proof as to the character of the land required where the field
notes describe it as “first-rate" and the plat shows a river crossing
the section. IV—261
Strong proof will be required to establish the desert character of land
returned as “good" or “first-rate” bottom land. VII–425
That the land was at one time included within a hay reservation
raises a presumption against its non-desert character, but such
presumption is not conclusive. X—313
Reclaimed land not subject to entry. IV—165
Case of Rivers v. Burbank cited and distinguished. IV–165
Additional proof as to the character of land covered by an entry may
be properly required by the Department. IX–379
Lassen County, Cal., lies in a section of the country designated by
Powell as “the arid region.” II–21
A small amount of non-irrigable land may be included in the entry.
V–481; VI-23
A tract, the greater portion of which is non-irrigable, may not be
taken as. WI–39
Entry not allowed to include a non-irrigable tract of 80 acres.
VIII–113
On exclusion of non-irrigable land the entryman may elect which
contiguous tracts he will enter. WI–38
In the absence of an adverse claim, an entry made in good faith will
not be canceled though it includes non-irrigable land. IX—137
Of no consequence to the government whether the non-irrigable land
covered by the entry is situated in one or more of the smallest
legal subdivisions. VIII–48
The non-irrigable character of a portion of the land entered will not
defeat the right to a patent if the land susceptible of irrigation is
reclaimed and the remainder is of no value to the government.
X–495
The non-irrigable character of the greater part of a 40-acre tract
will not defeat an entry therefor, if the land susceptible of irriga-
tion is reclaimed in good faith, and the remainder is valueless from
its rocky and hilly character. IX—204
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 119
Desert Laiud—Continued.
If negligence does not appear, the entryman may be permitted to
relinquish the non-irrigable part of the land covered by his entry
and submit proof for the remainder. IX—430
May be entered prior to survey. V-527
Only surveyed in the course of public survey except under sec. 2401
R. S. III–325, 331
Will not be surveyed under the deposit system, without showing
settlement. - III–331
The only reclamation specified in the act is by conducting water
upon the land. - III–9
The conversion of a worthless tract into grass-bearing land consti-
tutes reclamation. III–9
Beclamation shown by crops actually raised. I–26
Fact of reclamation may be established without showing crops as the
result of irrigation. V–120, 151
Is not reclaimed unless water in sufficient quantity for cultivation is
carried upon the land. I–26
The water conveyed upon the land must be in quantity sufficient to
prepare it for cultivation. II–692
Mode of irrigation not prescribed by the statute, but it should be
such as to show good faith and reclaim the land. IX—419
There is no penalty provided for failure to reclaim, but, in the place
of forfeiture, the purchaser is required to advance a part of the
purchase price as an assurance of good faith. III–9
Entry will not be disturbed where the default in reclamation is cured
before contest is brought. III–9
Relinquishment will be required of subdivisions not substantially
reclaimed. VII–253
Failure to reclaim for four years after entry shows an entire want of
good faith. II–18
The partial irrigation of a tract while held as a prečmption claim by
the entryman will not defeat his right under the desert-land act,
where substantial reclamation remained to be effected after the
original entry. VII–374
T ---4-- ~ 1 =>azel a tº a 4-3 are ~ was ov. 4-2. -- ***!: ree * - e -
i &ii Ula 1 1 UUlavilla Ulu Li Hyl Lul UV a JEJ11Uzu
to the facts. IV—165
If taken under the homestead law compliance with its terms must be
ShOWn. W–297
Price of, within railroad limits, may be properly fixed at double mini-
Idll Iſl. VII—436; VIII–368; IX—49; x–541
Price of, determined by the regulations in force at the time of the
initial entry. WI–145
Within the granted limits of the Texas Pacific, could not, prior to
the act of March 2, 1889, be sold at less than double minimum.
IX—271
120 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
Diligence.
In ascertaining the fact of cancellation of the entries, must be exer.
cised by settlers on abandoned homestead claims. II–89
. In land claims, the party who takes the initial step, if it is regularly
followed up to patent, is deemed to have acquired the better right
to the premises. II–167; IV—582; Ix–444; x–228
After filing application and depositing fees and commissions prior
to cancellation of a prior entry, failure to enter for six months
after cancellation shows want of ordinary diligence. II–50
District Officers. (See Land Department.)
Donation.
I. NEW MEXICO.
II. OREGON AND WASHINGTON.
I. NEW MEXICO.
Provided to secure permanent settlement and occupation of the
country. I-279
Claim may be relinquished and taken by the donee either as a home-
stead or prečmption. I–283
Where no certificate has issued the claim can not be docketed in the
General Land Office. I–284
Under the act of July 22, 1854, residence and settlement must be
contemporaneous, and settlement must have been commenced
within the time specified in said act. I-279, 284; IV-501
Residence and cultivation must be in good faith. I—297
Under the New Mexican act selections were required to be inade
prior to January 1, 1858. I-279,284
A claim founded upon a settlement made subsequently to January 1,
1858, is invalid in its inception. II–406, 407, 408; III–189
Where claim is invalid for want of settlement prior to January 1,
1858, but the claimant has made bona fide improvements, he may
be allowed to make prečmption or homestead entry.
II–408, 409, 410, 411, 412
Where settlement was in fact made in 1853, though claimed as in
1863, the notification may be amended. II–409
The occupancy and improvements of claimant, though not of such
character as to entitle him to the land under the donation law,
may be protected under the homestead or prečmption law. I–284
A relinquishment of, made by a woman, without explanation of her
relationship to the donee, will not be accepted as a basis for can-
cellation of the claim. III–94
II. OREGON AND WASHINGTON,
No entry allowed until after public surveys are made. II–446
Right to the land is not perfect and complete until the claimant has
performed all the conditions imposed by law; prior thereto he has
but a possessory right. I-279; II—437, 441, 451; III–471
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 121
II. OREGON AND WASHINGTON.—Continued.
Heirs of donee must show compliance with the law on the part of the
anceStor. III–469
Filing notification operates to segregate the land. I—303
Consideration of the provisions, in the several donation acts, relating
to notification. II–440
Rights of bona fide settlers, who failed in the matter of filing notifica-
tion, protected by the act of 1864. I–305
The act of 1850 required residence for four consecutive years, provided
checks against speculation, and avoided a sale before patent; act
of 1853 permitted commutation of time into money where settle-
ment had been followed by two years' residence and survey been
made; act of 1854 reduced to one year the period of occupancy
authorizing a purchase, but prohibited a sale except where there
had been four years' residence. II–448
The act of June 25, 1864, was designed to place a donation claimant
upon the same footing as a claimant under the prečmption law;
that is to give him a preferred right to the land until the time fixed
for filing his notice, and afterwards, if no adverse right intervened,
to extend the preferred right to the time at which he actually filed
the notice. II–443
Failure to give notice and to prove settlement as required by sections
6 and 7, act of 1850, defeats the claim. II–446
Four years' residence is requisite to secure title by occupation.
III–59
The acts of 1853 and 1854 grant the privilege of discontinuing the
occupation required by the act of 1850, and making a payment in
lieu thereof, only to those whose claims were surveyed while their
residence and cultivation were incomplete. II–438
If the husband could not have become a resident before December 1,
1850, or any time thereafter, no right was conferred upon the
widow by section 8 of the act of 1853. I-296
Improvement without residence and subsequent removal to another
part of the State, and authorized sale of improvements is abandon-
ment. II–427
turn to the land when the cause of his absence ceases, otherwise
the absence is abandonment. II–448
A sale of the claim prior to obtaining a complete right is an act of
abandonment and a forfeiture of any privilege the claimant might
have had to perfect it subsequently by a cash payment. II–438,451
Where claimant's affidavit asking a hearing against charges of aban-
donment shows non-compliance with requirements, claim will be
canceled without hearing. II–445
Failure of heirs to make final proof held to constitute abandonment.
III–469
122 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
II. OREGON AND WASHINGTON.—Continued.
The settler is the actor in Securing the grant, who alone represents
the claim, until the final proofs are made by him, his acts are the
acts of his wife, his neglect her neglect, and his abandonment her
abandonment. II–80
On the death of claimant certificate should issue in the name of the
heirs at law. I-291, 304
There is no authority for partitioning the land among the donees in
the event of the claimant's death. I–293
Where an alien claimant, having declared his intention to become a
citizen, died before naturalization, his possessory right descended
to his heirs, and patent properly issued to them. II–439
Where alien claimant, having declared his intentions, died before
naturalization, his possessory right descended to his heirs and pat-
ent properly issued to them; application by purchasers at adminis-
trator's sale to cancel patent denied. II–439
On the death of the settler a new grant is made by the statute to the
heirs at law, including the widow, if there is one, and proof of com-
pliance with the law up to the time of his death is sufficient. I-293
Though the claimant may be entitled at date of settlement to claim
three hundred and twenty acres, as a married man, if his wife dies
before the period of occupancy bas been completed, certificate can
issue for but one hundred and sixty acres. VII–545
Where the claimant, as a married man, claimed three hundred and
twenty acres he may be allowed to relinquish so as to approximate
one hundred and sixty acres and retain his improvements in the
event that his wife dies before the period of occupancy has been
completed. * VII–545
The Land Office should render decision on each application under
section 5 of the act of July 17, 1854, such decision to be final in the
absence of appeal. IV-103
On approval the case to be sent to the Department for final action.
IV–103
Under section 5, act of July 17, 1854, orphans left within the Terri-
tory are entitled to a quarter section of land, if the parent at the
time of death was qualified to initiate a claim under the donation
law. IX—234
The word “orphan,” as used in the fifth section of the act of July 17,
1854, means a child under twenty-one years of age, bereft of both
parents on or before the date when the donation acts expired.
WI–596
Children not entitled under the fifth section of the act of July 17,
1854, if either or both parents have received a. W–427
The claim of a widow who showed residence and cultivation for four
years is not recognized as falling within the provisions of section 5,
act of September 27, 1850, the same being limited to “white male
citizens.” III–74
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 123
II. OREGON AND WASHINGTON.—Continued.
Amendment of claim, on completion of residence, to include other
land, not permitted. I–303
Patent to but one claim can issue to any person in his own right.
I–292
Patent can not issue for land within the formal claim of another,
though such action is sought as the result of an agreement between
the parties. - I–294
On the proper relinquishment of the tract erroneously included
within the patent, a re-issue will be made in accordance with the
official survey. III–139
Patent will not be re-issued changing boundary lines and granting a
greater quantity of land on the showing made. III–15
Duress.
Actual violence not necessary to constitute. VI–616; VII-249
Threats to constitute, must be such as are calculated to operate on a
person of ordinary firmness in such a manner as to inspire a just
fear of the loss of life or great bodily injury. IX—22.
Peaceably building a house within twenty-five feet of another (both
near a spring) is not in itself an act of intimidation. II–630
A. quitclaim deed executed under duress will be treated as null and
void. II–86.
Entry. (See Alienation ; Application ; Contestant, subtitle Prefer-
ence Right ; Equitable Adjudication ; Final Proof; Relinquishment.
I. GENERALLY.
II. EFFECT OF.
III. APPROXIMATION.
IV. JOINT.
V. AMENDMENT.
VI. SECOND.
VII. RE-INSTATEMENT.
VIII. SUBJECT TO PREFERENCE RIGHT.
IX. LAND RESERVED FROM.
~r & W A ºr re-r-s" ºr a rin ran ºr
-CA-e V-J B-lv WJIM.L.L.E.A. l. LV1N a
XI. BY EMPLOYE OF THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE,
|XII. DESERT LAND.
XIII. HOMESTEAD.
XIV. PREMIXTION.
XV. TIMBER. CULTURE.
I. GENERALLY.
Manner of making, under homestead, prečmption, and timber-cul-
ture laws. General circular of March 20, 1883. I–656.
On land returned as swamp. Circular of December 13, 1886. V-279
124 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
H. GENERALLY-Continued,
Papers pertaining to, belong to the permanent files of the General
Land Office. W–258
Is made on land subject thereto when the application, affidavit, and
fees are placed in the hands of the proper officer. IV-463; VIII–226
TNot effected by application and preliminary affidavit unaccompanied
by the legal fees. VIII–224
Allowed in accordance with departmental rulings should not be can-
celed. v–261,292, 641;
VI–225; VII–75; VIII–399, 535; Ix–622; x–190
Of record should not be expunged by the local office. IV—554
May not be changed by erasure on the record. VII–220
Must remain of record until relinquished or canceled (on contest or
failure to make final proof) in regular proceedings. II–91
Bight to make, not considered in the absence of an application for
specific tract. IV—310; VII–254; Ix–194
Entryman must take notice of the character of the land. IV–133
Must stand in the true name of the entryman. WI-329
Not invalid because allowed outside of office hours. WI–1
Local officers should use all means of knowledge at command in
ascertaining validity of an entry. III–222
Local officers to consider objections to any entry. III–334
Strict enforcement of the law with reference to, in order to prevent
abuses. III–152
Under homestead and preemption law not consummated at the same
time. IV—442
By contestant of a homestead entry, may be for part of the land and
contiguous land. II–289
By contestant of a timber-culture entry, is restricted to land in con-
test, unless less than one hundred and sixty acres, when contiguous
land may be included. II–289
Covering tracts of land upon the opposite sides of a meandered
stream, allowed in accordance with existing practice, will not be
disturbed. W–641; WIII–62
Secured through fraudulent and speculative contest is invalid.
X-402
Tights under, lost through failure to act in good faith. IX—527
Whether fraudulent or speculative not determined by a fixed rule.
W–313
Legality of, will be considered by the Department when before it for
action, though the character of the entry, when made, was known
to the General Land Office. WI–371
II. EFFECT OF.
Effect of, relates back to the proper initial steps. I-461
Of record and prima facie valid, reserves the land covered thereby
from the operation of any subsequent law, grant, or sale. I–362
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 125
II. EFFECT OF-Continued.
A prima facie valid entry of record, operates as a reservation of the
land. II–98; III–169, 217, 229;
IV-210, 392, 441, 457, 586; VI-153,425; VIII–243, 528
Appropriates the tract against one alleging a superior claim, until
his rights have been finally determined. II–34
Homestead, or timber-culture, appropriates the land absolutely.
I–30, 362, 449; III–218; VII–140
Valid entry segregates the tract, and it is not again subject to claim
(prečmption) until the entry is lawfully canceled. II–294
A voidable entry while of record is an appropriation of the land.
III–446, 506; V–118
Exceeding one hundred and sixty acres is voidable only, and while
of record is an appropriation of the land. IV–92, 441
Void no segregation of the land. IV—449
If void will not exclude the land from the incipient appropriation of
a legal applicant. III–181
Void no bar to the legal application of the person who made such
entry. IV—467
Is notice of the land claimed, and possession must be limited thereby
as against Subsequent settlers. I–457
When attacked will be presumed valid. IV–62, 80; Ix–538
III. APPROXIMATION.
A quarter section is, under the homestead laws, one hundred and
sixty acres, and in fractional Sections an entry must approximate
one hundred and sixty acres as nearly as practicable. II–129
Must approximate one hundred and sixty acres in fractional sections.
- IV–92, 441
Of a “quarter section,” as such, allowed under the prečmption and
homestead laws. WI–797
May embrace a quarter section, platted as such, regardless of the
actual area. VII–20; x–116
When the excess above one hundred and sixty acres is less than the
deficiency would be if the subdivision were excluded, it may be
included in a homestead entry; where it is greater it must be ex-
cluded. II–88; III–459
Embracing tracts in two or more quarter sections must approximate
one hundred and sixty acres as nearly as practicable, without re-
quiring a division of the smallest legal subdivision. VIII–205
Embracing tracts in different quarter sections is limited in acreage,
and must approximate one hundred and sixty acres.
VII–20; x–62, 524, 587
Rule of approximation applied only where the entry is of parts of dif-
ferent quarter sections. WI-797
126 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
III. APPROXIMATION.—Continued.
Approximation required though the land had passed to a purchaser
for a valuable consideration. V–154
Exception to the rule requiring approximation in acreage made in
case of settlement before survey with valuable improvements on
each subdivision. v–295, 298
Exceptions to the rule requiring approximation recognized where
valuable improvements would be disturbed, or other like injury
follow the relinquishment of a subdivision. X–587
Rule requiring approximation waived in case of settlement before
survey with valuable improvements on each subdivision, and non-
cultivable land falling within the claim on Survey. W–631
May stand as made, where the difference between the excess and the
deficiency that would be caused by approximation is slight.
VIII–79
Allowed in violation of the rule of approximation segregates the land
covered thereby, but is subject to attack. VIII–205
IV. JOINT.
Final proof must be submitted before the award of joint. VI—826
Joint entry only allowed where the boundary of the prior location
excludes a portion of a legal subdivision. I—414
Joint, allowed where settlers prior to survey have improvements on
the same legal sub-divisions. V1–138, 826
Joint, not determined by the amount or character of the improve-
mentS. - VI–13S
Joint, may be allowed, in case of conflicting settlements prior to sur.
vey, . III–609; Iv–520; V-605; x–234
Joint, not allowed unless the settlement was prior to the survey in
the field. * VIII–536
Where settlement preceded survey and the parties had recognized a
boundary line as indicating their possessory rights, joint entry was
allowed. Iv–27, 230
Joint entry allowed in case of conflicting homestead settlements,
where there is an agreed boundary line. . II–104, 150, 585
Joint entry not allowed in case of conflicting homestead settlements
prior to survey. I—414
Joint, not allowed for land settled upon after survey. IV—410
Under an award of joint entry the parties are not authorized to divide
equally the forty acres in dispute and enter the same in accordance
with such partition. VII–3
If either party refuse to make, the other may enter according to his
filing. IV—231
An alien, who settles prior to survey in the field and files declaration
of intention to become a citizen before approval of the survey, is
entitled to make joint. - WIII–536
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. - 127
IV. JOINT—Continued.
Conflicting settlement rights acquired prior to survey may be adjusted
by allowing either settler to enter the entire tract, on condition
that he tenders the other a written agreement to convey to him
that portion of the land covered by his rightful occupation.
VI–826; VII–3; VIII–536; x–234
Joint, allowed under section 2274, in case of refusal to enter under
an agreement to convey. VII–3
The extent of joint, allowed by section .7, act of July 23, 1866, is
measured by the joint occupancy of the parties, and only includes
such legal subdivisions as are required to adjust their coterminous
boundaries. - WI–434
In the consummation of joint, under section 7, act of July 23, 1866,
each party is entitled to enter that portion of the land defined by
his original purchase and separate Occupation. WI–434
V. AMENDMENT.
Circular regulations with respect to amendment of. VIII–187
The right to an amendment of, lies within the discretion of the offi-
cers charged with the disposition of the public land. III–157
Amendment of, not allowed except for good reason shown.
Iv–365; VII-298
Where amendment is authorized, sixty days only are allowed for
making it. II–206
Amendment of, not allowed in the local Office. III–471
The written opinion of the local officers, as provided in section 2372,
Revised Statutes, may be required, out of due caution, in case of
application for amendment of timber culture. WI–644; VII–364
In applications for amendment the written opinion of the local offi.
cers, as provided for in section 2372, Revised Statutes, may be
properly required in entries not expressly included within said stat-
ute. VII–155
If the evidence in support of an application for amendment is not sat-
isfactory the case may be remanded for further showing under the
rule requiring a written opinion from the local officers. VII–155
Distinction between amendment of, and second. VI—505
On application to amend it should be shown that the tract covered
by the proposed amendment is the same as that originally selected
after personal inspection, and that the error was made through no
fault of the entryman. VII–363
Application for amendment should show what efforts were made to
learn the true description of the land and how the mistake oc-
Curred. . WII–44
Amendment allowed, on due showing of such care as a man of ordi-
nary prudence would exercise. I–457; WI-355, 785
128 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
V. AMENDMENT—Continued.
May be amended so as to take the lands intended to be entered
where the mistake is satisfactorily explained.
V–534, 583; WI–505, 644, 785; VII–155
Amendment not authorized, unless it appears that the record fails to
express the original intention of the entryman. III–362; IX—376
May be amended in accordance with the original application, where
the amount was improperly restricted by the local office. VIII–58
On amendment, may be allowed for one hundred and sixty acres where
the first through mistake covered but eighty. WII–363
Amendment or new entry allowed in case of noncontiguous tracts.
IV—33
Amendment allowed where the error arose through the fault of the
local office. IW–112
Defect in, occurring through ignorance, may be cured. I–46
Defect in voidable, may be cured prior to the intervention of ad-
verse claim. W–248,394; VI-425; VIII–1; x–61
Amendment of, to correspond with settlement allowed. III–157, 413
May be amended so as to embrace the land covered by the actual
settlement and improvements of the entryman; and such right is
superior to all intervening adverse claims made with a full knowl-
edge of the facts. VII–387
Amendment allowed to correspond with Occupancy and improvement.
I–159
An entry made without examination of the land may not be amended.
III–362; VII–219
Right of amendment defeated by an intervening adverse claim.
- II–38, 577; VII–428
Application for amendment of, based on the ground that the desired
tract was not subject to appropriation at date of original applica-
tion, not granted. V–534; VII–261; X-419
Amendment of timber-culture governed by the same rule as that under
which homestead entries are amended. VI—355
Amendment of, is an ea parte proceeding, after priorities have been
determined. IX—455
Amendment of, not granted in the absence of good faith. I–456
An amended entry founded on a misrepresentation of the facts should
be canceled. - II–576
Application for amendment of, does not excuse failure to comply
with the law. W–349
On application to amend, a mortgagee may submit evidence showing
... that the final proof did in fact apply to the land covered by the
claimants' settlement, and not that embraced within the final cer-
tificate. WI–834
Allowed for adjacent land whereon the entryman had accidently cut
timber. II–808
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 129
V. AMENDMENT—Continued.
Where one enters a tract by mistake and intentionally settles on and
improves another tract, prior to act of May 14, 1880, he must
amend his entry before intervention of a valid adverse right (pre-
emption settlement and filing) II–575
Where settler entered the wrong tract by mistake, and failed to
reside on either tract by reason of his wife's sickness, he may
amend so as to embrace the tract originally selected if no adverse
rights have meanwhile attached to it. II–170
Allowed after contest commenced, where the tract was by mistake
entered as an original instead of an adjoining farm homestead.
II–38
Pending applications for amendment should be adjudicated upon their
merits and under the practice heretofore prevailing. VII—155
On allowance of amendment after patent, reconveyance of the land
improperly patented is required. VIII–303
VI. SECON D.
Right to make second, not considered without application for specific
traCt. IV—310, 451; VII–254
The right to make second, only allowed after careful scrutiny. III–161
On allowance of second, the first must be relinquished. VIII–429
On allowance of second, the entryman should be required to state
under oath that the relinquishment of the first is not for the ben-
efit of another. - VIII–507
An application for lands not intended to be taken under the original
entry is for the privilege of making a second entry and not for the
right of amendment. X-207
Second, should not be allowed through the process of amendment.
W–50.5
Second, allowed under the same principle that governs the allowance
of a second filing. v1–290, 362
Failure to exercise the right, once accorded, to make the second, will,
in the absence of explanation, preclude favorable action on a sub-
sequent application of a similar character. IX—383
Second, not allowed in the absence of due care in selecting aud en-
tering the land desired. WI-353
Right to make second, recognized on relinquishment of the first,
which was illegal because of conflict. I–45
Second, allowed where the first failed through a mistake of fact as to
the character and identity of a prior record claim. WI–362
Second, allowed for the same land, under changed departmental
rulings affecting the status of the tract. IV—249
Second, not allowed though first was relinquished on erroneous advice
of local office. IV—188
10464—9
130 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
VI. SECONID—Continued.
Second, allowed where the first, through no fault of claimant, can not
be carried to patent. - VI—353, 645, 505
Right to make second, recognized where the first, through no fault
of the entryman, was not for the land intended to be taken. VIII–429
Second, allowed where the first, through no fault of the entryman, did
not cover the land intended, and amendment is barred by an ad-
verse claim. VIII–239
Second, allowed where the first covered land not habitable, and the
reasons therefore were not discoverable by ordinary diligence.
- VIII–507
Where the right to make a second, rests on the non-inhabitable char-
acter of the land covered by the first, the facts as to the nature and
condition of both tracts should be clearly set forth. IX—207
Second, may be allowed where the first, through mistake, was for un-
tillable land. I–56; X—557
Second, allowed where water fit for domestic use could not be ob-
tained on the land covered by the first. I–54; IX—207, 333
A second entry is allowed, where the land first entered fails to pro-
duce crops by reason of lack of rainfall or unfitness of soil. II-171
May not be made by one who relinquished a homestead because of
the ravages of grasshoppers. II–141
The right to make second, accorded when the first, through no fault
of the entryman, was made for land covered by a prior bona fide
prečmption claim. VIII–98; x–9
The right to make a second, recognized where the first, made in good
faith, was abandoned on account of conflict with the bona fide pre-
emption claim of another. 4. VIII–100
Second, allowed where the first, for equitable reasons, was relin-
quished on account of conflict with the prior settlement right of a
prečmptor who was in default in the matter of submitting proof.
II–102; VIII–131
Where an amendment would be allowed, in accordance with the
original intention of the applicant, but for the existence of an inter-
vening adverse claim, the right to make entry has not been ex-
hausted. t VI–505
The right to make second, for same tract denied where the first was
made while claiming other land as a prečmptor, and commutation
proof was submitted under the first, pending application to make
the second. VII-215
Right to reënter same tract, where the original entry was canceled
for invalidity, may be considered in the absence of intervening
adverse rights. VI–831
Right to relinquish invalid, and make new entry of same tract de.
feated by the preference right of a successful contestant. VI-831
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONs. 131
VI. SECON D–Continued.
The right to make a second, will not be accorded where the first was
for land subject thereto, and failed through the fault of the entry-
IIla, Il. VIII–96
Second, allowed where the first was made in good faith for land
afterwards held not subject thereto, and accordingly canceled on
relinquishment. VIII–137
Second, may be made where the first was relinquished under the
belief that it could not be maintained without danger to the entry-
man's life. VIII–587
New, allowed in place of illegal, good faith being manifest and no
valid adverse claim. IV—492
Second, for the same tract accorded to one whose former entry, made
prior to his majority, is canceled. II–113
Right to make second, under the act of March 2, 1889; circular of
March 8, 1889. -- * VIII–314
Application to make second, pending at the passage of the act of
March 2, 1889, secures to the applicant the benefit of said act to
the exclusion of intervening adverse claims. VIII–457; x–192
The right to make second, conferred by the act of March 2, 1889.
validates one made prior thereto, though not authorized by law
when made. IX—543
Second, under act of March 2, 1889, not allowed for a quantity that,
added to the first, will exceed one hundred and sixty acres. X–661
Second, for the same tract, may be accorded under the act of March
2, 1889, when the first was illegal, when made, by reason of the
entryman having previously filed a soldier's declaratory statement
for another tract. IX–145
New entry for the same land may be made under section 2, act of
March 2, 1889, where the first was canceled because made during
the maintenance of a prečmption claim for another. IX—312
Same principle governs allowance of second timber culture, as obtains
in the case of a second homestead. WI–505
Second timber-culture, will not be allowed when the first was upon
land not subject thereto. III–152
Second timber-culture, may be allowed where the first, through mis-
take, was for land not subject thereto, and good faith is apparent,
• VII–297
Second timber-culture, allowed to stand as an amendment of the
first. II–852
Failure to secure growth of timber is not good ground for the allow-
ance of second timber-culture. - I—125
Second timber-culture, may be made where causes beyond the entry-
man's control prevent the use of the land first entered for timber-
culture purposes. II–327
132 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
VI. SECOND–Continued.
Second timber-culture, may be made by one whose former entry is
canceled because made on land occupied and improved by another.
- II–118
Second timber-culture, may be made by a citizen who, when an alien,
innocently made a prior entry which was canceled for non-com-
pliance with law. II–250
Second timber-culture, may be made by one who was not allowed to
amend a former entry, because of the interposition of other rights,
where the equities were with him. II–253, 254
VII. RE-INSTATEMENT. (See Railroad Lands.)
Canceled on relinquishment filed under an erroneous ruling may be
reinstated. VII–470
Canceled without notice may be reinstated for hearing. IV—397
Canceled portion of, under changed conditions may be reinstated in
the absence of adverse claims. V–333
Of railroad lands, improperly canceled, may be re-instated on the
forfeiture of the grant and confirmation of entries made of the
granted lands. VI-444
Dnder the graduation act, erroneously canceled, may be re-instated
for the benefit of the heirs, though the entryman, in ignorance of
his rights, made a homestead entry of the land which was after-
wards canceled for failure to submit final proof. X–569
Canceled by mistake, and without notice to the entryman of his right
of appeal, and without his knowledge that such action was erron-
eous, may be re-instated on the application of the entryman's heirs,
made within a reasonable time after learning the facts. X—569
Re-instatement of, for the benefit of heirs not defeated by the inter-
vening entry of another, made with full knowledge that the heirs
were in possession of, and residing upon, the land. X—57()
Re-instatement of, for the benefit of heirs not barred by the unsuc-
cessful contest of one of the heirs against an intervening entry
alleging priority of settlement. X–57()
Canceled for bad faith will not be re-instated on the application of a
transferee except on a statement of facts showing the good faith
of the entryman. X–566
Change of entry (cash) by A was allowed in 1855, but not perfected;
in 1876 an additional homestead entry by B was allowed and pat-
ented ; B's grantor surrenders the patent on ground that the land
is occupied by C ; D, a claimant under A, with recently acquired
rights, applies for re instatement of A's entry, and it is allowed.
II–657
Where a desert-land entry is duly relinquished and canceled, it will
not be re-instated on the application of a stranger, though he
claims to have purchased from the entryman a Valuable interest
in it. II–24
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 133
VII. RE-INSTATEMENT—Continued.
Of a timber-culture claim may be allowed where relinquishment of it
was obtained from the claimant while drunk. II–325
VIII. SUBJECT TO PREFERENCE RIGHT. .
May be allowed during the period accorded the successful contestant,
subject to his preferred right. I–162, 486; VII–186; Ix–70, 491
Made during the thirty days accorded a successful contestant is sub-
ject to such right. - Ix—478, 491
On cancellation of, under contest, the land covered thereby is open
at once to appropriation, subject only to the right of the success-
ful contestant. VII–186
Made during the thirty days accorded a successful contestant should
not be canceled without due notice to the entryman and action had
thereon. IX—491; X-18, 41
When allowed subject to preferred right of successful contestant,
and such contestant subsequently applies to enter the land, due
notice thereof should be given the entryman, with opportunity to
show cause why the contestant should not be allowed to perfect
his entry. - WI–643
After the expiration of the period accorded a successful contestant
an entry by another is prima facie valid, and should not be can-
celed without due notice to the entryman. WI–509; VII–49; x–41
Pending an invalid contest, a relinquishment and change of entry
may be made. II–220
Pending a contest, a relinquishment and change of entry (timber-
culture to homestead) may be made, subject to the preferred right
of the contestant. II–265
Preferred right of, if not exercised within a reasonable period,
should be held as abandoned. IX—541
IX. LAND RESERVED FROM.
An order suspending all action as to certain land defeats an entry
made thereon pending such order. III–238
May not be made on a tract withdrawn for the purpose of a sale
under section 2455, Revised Statutes. II–242
Not allowed for land suspended from sale or entry, by order of the
surveyor-general, pending the final location of a private claim.
- VIII–186
On land reserved by competent authority, is illegal, and can not go
to patent, notwithstanding the fact that the records of the local
office did not disclose the existence of the reservation, that the
entry was allowed by the local office, and great expense incurred.
- WI–585
Not allowed of land held and actually occupied by the military,
under direction of the War Department. IX-600
134 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
IX. LAND RESERVED FROM–Continued.
Will not be allowed for lands long occupied by Indians, with the
consent of the government and under direction of the military
authorities. - III–203
Made on land covered by the prior timber-culture entry of another,
not of record and under which no rights' were asserted, is good as
against every One except the timber-culture entryman. X-59
Where priority of settlement is alleged, under section 3, act of May
14, 1880, there may be a second entry, subject to an adjustment of
the conflicting claims. II–146
Of land included within the entry of another is irregular, but prima
facie valid on cancellation of the senior entry. VIII–37S
Land embraced within a prima facie, valid, not subject to entry by
another. VII–444
Allowed while the land is covered by the entry of another may be
suspended, pending determination of conflict. X–19
Two for the same tract should not be allowed of record at the same
time. WI–425, 75S; X—18, 43
In the absence of an adverse right an entry, based upon filing made
while the land was included within a descrt-land entry, was allowed
to stand. III–526
Should not be allowed for land involved in a prior contest, pending
an appeal. - III–217; VIII–121
May not be made by a third person pending an appeal from the rejec-
tion of a prior application. II–270
Though made on land not subject thereto, on the removal of the bar
may stand intact. II–244; VI-23, 425; X—313
Subject to rights existing under a prior filing. IV—262
Rejected application to file, pending on appeal, no bar to. IV—403
Not allowed on land improved by another and in his possession by
color of law. - II–44
While relinquishing, for the purpose of changing a homestead to a
timber-culture entry, but while still retaining possession of the
tract, the entry of another barred. II–44
May be made by one relinquishing a claim pending contest against
it illegally instituted. II–220
Not allowed for swamp land. X-39
Should not be allowed for land covered by railroad selection. V–396
Should not be allowed for land covered by a pending railroad selec-
tion; but if allowed will not be canceled, but treated as an appli-
cation and held subject to the selection. VII–80
Invalid railroad selection no bar to. IV-405
Pending appeal from the rejection of a railroad indemnity selection
excludes land from. X-15
Allowed for unselected land within the limits of an indemnity with-
drawal, subsequently revoked, will not be disturbed. WII-240
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 135
IX. IAND RESERVED FROM –Continued.
Rejected on account of railroad indemnity withdrawal, subsequently
revoked, may be allowed as of the date when the order of revoca-
tion became effective. - WI–378
Permitted on showing compliance with law, after the revocation of
a former indemnity withdrawal covering the land. WI–382
X. CANCELLATION. (See Judgment.)
The Land Department has full authority to cancel entries for illegal-
ity and fraud. II–599, 783;
III–299; V-443; VI—503; VIII-269; Ix–316, 573
Ea parte report of a special agent is not ground for cancellation;
there must be a hearing.
II–784; III–504; IV-340; V-170, 313; v1–503
Not canceled except on conclusive evidence. . W–313
May not be canceled by local officers except under the act of May 14,
1880. III–567
The Land Department will take summary action when the record
shows a fraudulent entry, notwithstanding contest allegation was
abandonment and was not proved. II–95, 97
Diligence in ascertaining the fact of cancellation must be exercised
by settlers on abandoned homestead claims. . II–89
Erroneous cancellation does not subject the tract to appropriation by
a stranger to the record, who had located it while the entry (mine-
ral) was subsisting. II–767
Is a mere formal method of executing the judgment of the Land
Department against the entryman, and, so far as his rights are con-
cerned, takes effect by relation as of the date that judgment becomes
final. II–166
As to the rights of third parties, cancellation takes effect (releases the
land from reservation) by the formal act at local office. II–168
When final judgment of cancellation is rendered by the Commissioner
the entry is thereby canceled, and the land opened to appropria-
tion without waiting for the expiration of the time allowed for
appeal. v1–563, 700; VII–163; x–222
Cancellation of, takes effect as of the date when the decision is ren-
dered. VII–163
Voidable, that conflicts with prior rights may be set aside. W–379
Will be canceled where the law has not been complied with, and fur-
ther compliance is not possible, notwithstanding the plea of “hard-
ship.” WI–432
Set up to defeat the right of another, must be canceled if the evidence
shows non-compliance with the law. WI–330
XI. BY EMPLOYE OF THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE.
Origin and reason of the rule forbidding local officers and their
employes from making entries of the public lands. II–107, 314
136 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
XI. BY EMPLOYE OF THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE–Cont'd.
Local officers and their clerks can not make, in their own districts,
except under section 2287, Revised Statutes. WI-105
May be made by a local officer, or clerk, but not by a special agent,
in a district other than that in which he is stationed. II–313
May be made by employés of land office in a district other than that
in which they are located. WI–106
The mineral entry of a deputy mineral surveyor within the district
for which he is appointed is not in violation of any statute or regu-
lation, but care should be exercised in the allowance of such entries.
WI-105
Clerks in local office prohibited from making. IV- 77
The disqualification to enter, provided in section 452, Revised Statutes,
extends to officers, clerks, and employes in any of the branches of
the public service under the control of the Commissioner. X–97
A homestead entry based upon a soldier's declaratory filed after
appointment as receiver is wholly illegal. II–110
Whether or not a mineral “ location” by a register is within the pro-
hibition of circular of August 26, 1876, against “entry,” a purchaser
in good faith of the register’s interest in such location may make
entry. II–754
A receiver who files soldier's declaratory prior to appointment may
afterwards make preemption, but not homestead, entry, provided
he was a bona fide settler on the land prior to appointment; if he
has made homestead entry, but did not reside on the land prior to
his appointment, his entry must be canceled. II–108
Where timber-culture entry was made when a receiver’s clerk, but
contest was brought after such service had ceased, in view of claim.
ant's good faith, entry is allowed to stand. - II–314
One who files desert-land declaratory prior to appointment as register,
and thereafter resigns, and, after acceptance of resignation, but
while still performing the duties of the office, applies to relinquish
part of the claim and make homestead entry thereon is not entitled
to such right. II–106
No presumption against the good faith of, can arise from the fact
that the entryman was formerly the register of the land office where
the entry was made. IX-534
Right of entry not defeated because the son of the entryman was
chief clerk in the local office. IV-77
By the sister of a receiver, is not necessarily invalid. II–105
XII. DESERT LAND.
Should be posted on tract-book in General Land Office. V-597
Under the desert-land law is a contract. WI–146
Application to make, must show personal knowledge of the applicant
as to the character of the laud. VII-312; VIII–96
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 137
XII. DESERT LAND–Continued.
Application to make in accordance with existing regulations should
not be rejected because not in conformity with later regulations
as to the personal knowledge of the applicant concerning the
character of the land. VIII–408
Claim for, initiated by the application and not by settlement. VI—541
Entry for, in the interest of another not permitted. IV-445;
- VII–337, 378
The law restricts one person to an entry of one tract, in a compact
form, not exceeding six hundred and forty acres. I–28; II–22; III-215
An individual or corporation not permitted through indirection to
secure more than One. VII–337
Entries for, treated as prečmptions under the act of May 14, 1880.
III–69; v-694, 708; VI-1, 572; VII–186
But one declaration of intention to make entry allowed. W–414
Right of married woman to make, recognized. VI–114, 541; X-48
Not allowed for land covered by the improvements of a bona fide set-
tler. VIII–630
Though allowed, is subsequently subject to the Supervisory authority
of the Department. IX—379
In each the questions are: (1) Is the land desert in character and
the entry compact in form; and (2) is the entryman duly qualified,
and has he shown due compliance with law. VIII–48
Must be compact in form. IV—34
Compactness of, how determined. IV—317
Rule as to compactness not rigid. W–4
Circular regulations with respect to compactness modified. W–429
Decisions and regulations of the Department with respect to “com-
pactness” cited and compared. VIII–104
In determining compactness, the relation of the land to adjacent
tracts may be considered. W–4, 642
The existence of prior adjacent entries and the topography of the
country must be taken into consideration in determining the ques-
tion of compactness. IX—248
Statutory requirements as to compactness must be followed rather
than departmental regulations. W–429
Amendment required where the rule as to compactness has not been
observed. - VII–247
Covering technical three-quarters of section is compact. IV—291
Is not compact that covers a narrow strip of land lying along and
upon both sides of a stream. VI–536; Ix–202
Two miles in length for three hundred and sixty acres not compact.
IV—445
On the adjustment of, to conform to the requirement of compactness,
due regard may be given to the situation of the land and its rela-
tion to other lands at the time the entry was made. Ix–202, 307
138 IDIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
XII. DESERT LAND–Continued.
An entry allowed in accordance with existing regulations, and for
which proof was accepted, will not be disturbed, though not within
the later requirements as to “compactness.” VIII–104
Allowed in conformity with existing regulations as to compactness
should not be canceled under later regulations imposing a more
rigid rule. VIII–231
The requirement of compactness is statutory, hence an entry in
obvious violation thereof is not protected by the fact that it was
made before the Department issued instructions as to said require-
ment. Ix–202, 307, 379
Allowed for the land reclaimed on relinquishment of remainder.
WI–23
Not assignable. I–28
Assignments before final proof recognized prior to April 15, 1880.
& v–21, 597
Assignments of entries, made while the rule was in force, allowing
the same, will be protected. III–214; V–167, 595
One person can not take more than six hundred and forty acres,
either as entryman or assignee. v–19, 167, 597
Patent will issue to entryman though assignment is recognized.
III–216; V-167
Where an assignment cf entry is recognized, the assignee will be
entitled to all the rights of the entryman. III–215
Where one procured three others to make desert-land entries, aggre-
gating 1,760 acres, and assign them to him, it was in fraud of the
desert-land act, which restricts one person to six hundred and forty
2,OI’OS. II–22
May be allowed subject to the preference right of successful contest.
VII–227
The right, by prior appropriation, to the requisite water supply must
be determined by the Land Department. IX—6
Should not be canceled in the absence of adverse claim, though on
hearing it appear that the land was not reclaimed at date of final
proof, but that reclamation was subsequently effected. VIII–48
Final, after expiration of statutory period, allowed in the absence of
adverse claims. IV—261
May be equitably confirmed when the failure to effect reclamation
within the statutory period is due to obstacles that could not be
OVer COIſle, VI–548, 799; VII–247; VIII–573; Ix–631; x–598
Amendment, after the period for reclamation has expired, can only
include reclaimed land. VII–247
When made prior to survey the entryman is entitled on survey of
the township to have his claim properly described by legal sub-
divisions. , VII–177
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 139
XII. DESERT LAND–Continued.
Made in good faith, in ignorance of the fact that the land was in-
cluded within a hay reservation, may stand, where such reserva-
tion is subsequently abandoned and the land restored to the pub-
lic domain. - X—313
Allowed to stand though made when the land was apparently not
subject thereto, the bar having been removed, no adverse claim
existing, and due reclamation shown. WI–23
XIII. HOMESTEAD.
(See Mineral Land.)
Voidable for illegality in preliminary affidavit. v–118, 248
Execution of preliminary affidavit before clerk of court without prior
residence renders the entry voidable, not void, and the defect may
be cured in the absence of an adverse claim. WI–425; Ix–20
Confers no right in the presence of a valid intervening claim, where
the preliminary affidavit was executed before a clerk of court with-
out the requisite residence on the land. –245
Voidable where the preliminary affidavit was made before a clerk of
court without the prerequisite residence on the land; but such de-
fect may be cured prior to contest. VIII–1
Based upon preliminary affidavit, executed before a clerk of court,
without the prerequisite residence on the land, is voidable, and the
defect can not be cured if, before such residence is acquired, the
right of a contestant intervenes. IX—209
Is voidable if the preliminary affidavit was executed before a clerk
of court when residence had not been acquired, but the defect is
cured by subsequent residence prior to the intervention of an ad-
verse claim. - WI–722
Failure of the entryman to establish the prerequisite residence, where
the preliminary affidavit is executed before a clerk of court, may
be cured by the establishment of residence prior to the interven
tion of an adverse right, and a subsequent contest does not cut off
the right of amendment. X-61
Based on preliminary affidavit made before a clerk of court not au-
thorized to act in such matters is voidable only, and the defect may
be cured by supplemental affidavit. gº v–394; VI—257
The affidavit required in section 2294, R. S., may be made in the
county to which the one is attached wherein the land is situated.
WI–257
Of settler relates back under act of May 14, 1880, to date of settle-
ment, to the exclusion of intervening claim.
v1–257, 653; VII–537; VIII–448
Not allowed under section 3, act of May 14, 1880, until the record is
cleared of adverse claims. 1–449
Under section 2291, not allowed on proof, submitted in commutation
of the original entry. VIII–86
140 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
YIII. HOMESTEAD–Continued.
Made under section 2293 Revised Statutes without the required set-
tlement and improvement ratified by the subsequent enactment of
section 2308 Revised Statutes. I–362
For lands settled upon originally by the claimant and others as a
town site, and actually occupied for trade and business, is illegal
and must be canceled. IX—532
Not prevented by abandoned townsite settlement. W–180
After final, the discovery of mineral on the land will not affect rights
acquired thereunder. VII—570
Must only include contiguous tracts; and tracts “cornering ” upon
each other are not within the rule. V–683
May stand intact as to the agricultural tracts, though they are ren-
dered non-contiguous by a segregation survey made necessary by a
mineral discovery after the original entry was made. IX-143
By alien, who subsequently declares his intention of becoming a citi.
Zen, not void. IV—564
May be equitably confirmed where through ignorance the entry man
submits final proof prior to becoming a citizen. X—475
Right of, not acquired by the purchase of the improvements of a
homesteader, as against the prior adverse settlement of another.
IV–121
Of land not subject thereto, not legalized by subsequent residence,
cultivation, and improvements. X—649
Allowed to two claimants, to correspond with their settlement rights,
in place of a canceled illegal entry made by one for the joint bene-
fit of each. IV—529
Made while the entryman has a pending unperfected prečmption
claim, is not Void, but prima facie valid, and only becomes voidable
by the subsequent maintenance of the prečmption claim. VII-215
Made while the entryman has a pending prečmption claim of record
for another tract is not necessarily void, for said claim may have
been in fact abandoned. IX—63
By one who went upon the land as the tenant of another may be
allowed, where there is no fraud, and where the latter has made
no claim to the land. II–135
|Failure to establish residence until after action upon the adverse
report of a special agent does not in itself warrant cancellation.
VII–464
Admitted against the claim of a railroad company, where final proof
was to follow at once, the company to have special notice thereof.
IV—256
Allowed in contravention of the terms of the act of March 3, 1883,
may be suspended until after public offering of the land.
VII–560; IX-203, 635.
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 141
XIII. HOMESTEAD–Continued.
In changing an entry pending a contest for default, one will not be
permitted to assert a homestead right initiated while the tract was
covered by his timber-culture entry. II-265.
Allowed as a homestead for land formerly claimed under the pre-
emption law, notwithstanding certain alleged intervening adverse
rights. e III–313
By contestant of a timber-culture claim is confined to land in contest,
unless less than one hundred and sixty acres, when contiguous
land may be taken; by contestant of a homestead claim may be made
on a portion of the land in contest and adjoining land. II–289
In conflict with previously acquired rights is voidable. I–449
If made for any other purpose than the establishment of a home is
in bad faith. VIII–248
A homestead entry in another's interest, and not for a home for the
entryman, is in fraud of the law and invalid ab initio. II–95
XIV. PREEMPTION. (See Filing.)
Under the regulations of the Department the tracts embraced must
be contiguous. VI—621
Tracts cornering on each other are not contiguous. WI–621
When allowed relates back to final proof to the exclusion of inter-
vening adverse claims. VIII–224; x–253
The rule that an entry is equivalent to patent, in so far as third par-
ties are concerned, does not apply to an entry void for fraud.
II—780
Of a portion of the land filed for and settled upon is an abandonment
and relinquishment of the remainder. WI–356
Allowance of, by the local officers does not preclude the General Land
Office or i>epartment from passing on its validity. VIII-269
Allowed will not be canceled except on positive showing of bad faith.
VI–292, 418
Eound to be fraudulent in character and based on false proof must be
canceled. II–779; VIII–524
If made contrary to law should be canceled. VIII-269
Where cash entry has been made of record, though inadvertently, it
can only be vacated by regular proceedings. II–57
Of double minimum land at single minimum price may be rectified
by the required additional payment or relinquishment of half the
land. VII–579
Will be made in the name of the heirs generally on death of pre-
emptor. - WI–30
Allowed within less than three months from filing of the township
plat will not be disturbed when it is apparent that all parties have
had full opportunity to assert their claims. WI–633
gº
142 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
XIV. PREEMPTION.—Continued.
May be sent to the Board of Equitable Adjudication when allowed
on proof made by a married woman who, prior to marriage, had
complied with the law and tendered proof. VIII–433
May be equitably confirmed when a single woman, after settlement,
filing inhabitancy, and improvement, marries prior to final proof,
but after published notice of intention to submit the same.
I–460; IX—215
Made in good faith by a married woman who, prior to marriage, had
fully complied with the law as to settlement, residence, and im-
provement may be equitably confirmed. X—629
May be confirmed by equitable action, in the absence of an adverse
claim, where a single woman after settlement, filing, due inhabit-
ancy, and improvement, marries prior to final proof, but after pub-
lished notice of intention to submit the same. X–166
Allowed on second filing may be sent to the Board of Equitable Ad-
judication, where the fact of the first filing was disclosed at the
time of entry. VIII–445
Entry should be sent to the Board of Equitable Adjudication where
made after the expiration of the statutory period. VIII-355
XV. TIMBER, CULTURE.
Circular of February 1, 1882, with blank forms. I–638
The preliminary aftidavit is statutory, and the department has no
authority to add thereto. III–606; VIII–20
Voidable only where application and preliminary affidavit are exe-
cuted outside of the district and territory in which the land is situ-
ated. Iv–492; V1–762
Allowed on preliminary affidavit executed outside of the State where
the land is situated, is voidable, but may be amended, to relate
back to the original entry, in the absence of adverse right. VIII–478
Made through an agent, and without the preliminary affidavit, is
illegal, but the defect may be cured by affidavit properly executed,
which will be held to relate back to the date of entry. VII–50
Based on preliminary papers falsely purporting to have been prop-
erly executed, but in fact not sworn to before any officer, is illegal,
and the defect can not be cured by amendment. IX—238
Should not be allowed upon application made While the land is cov-
ered by an uncanceled entry. III–320
A timber-culture entry must be made on Vacant, unimproved land,
and not on land covered by the valuable improvements of another,
and in the possession of another. (See 6 L. D., 608.) II–118, 269
A timber-culture entry may not be made within the incorporated
limits of a city or town. II–634
Segregates the land covered thereby. I–52; V-174
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 143
XV. TIMBER, CULTURE–Continued.
Regularly made, though for land not subject thereto, while of record,
segregates the land. WI–819
Entry excludes subsequent claim founded upon settlement. III–565
But one quarter may be entered in a section. III–182, 311; V–173
Of but 160 acres allowed in a section of 640 acres. WI–804
Allowed in the proportion of 160 acres for every 640, in sections con-
taining an excess. IW–69
Not more than one-quarter of a fractional Section can be taken under
the timber-culture law. X-681
Timber culture entry, to extent of 160 acres, may be made in a section
containing 342 acres. II–322
Two in one section allowed to stand where the amount of land cov-
ered thereby was only slightly in excess of one-fourth of the section.
WI–339
Second in section prima facie Void. IV–448
The second allowed to stand, the first being prima facie invalid.
W–173
May be allowed where there is a prior timber-culture entry which is
illegal and can not go to patent. II—256
For less than 160 acres exhausts the right, and such an entry can not
be enlarged to include a tract which the entryman, at the time of
making the original entry, Supposed was not subject to such appro-
priation. IX—376
Under the law a person may make but One entry. III–185
Refused where another entry on the land had been allowed; but in
view of the equities a second entry is permitted. II–253
Timber-culture entry for S. § of NE. # and two lots (91.14 and 91.21
acres) must be canceled as to either the S. $, or one 40 and one lot,
or one of the lots; any excess to be paid for in cash. II–315
Entry of land in different sections not allowed. III–361
Land covered by, is, at the moment the entryman is in default, open
to the entry of the first legal claimant.
II–266,283,297, 318; IV-508
Possession of the entryman, who is in default, can not defeat the ap-
plication of a contestant. º IV-508
Settlement and filing do not reserve land from, but serve as notice to
the timber-culture applicant of the prečmptor's priority of right.
IX—262
Will not be allowed where there is a prior entry in the same section,
though contest against it is pending. II–34
Land not reserved from, by unlawful inclosure. VI-608
Allowed subject to the alleged priority of prečmptor. W–173
May be made on land, covered by a prečmption filing, and takes the
land on failure by the prečmptor to make final proof in the time re-
quired. II–593
144 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
N , . TIMBER, CULTURE–Continued.
As recorded, allowed to stand, though not for land originally applied
for. IV—112
Held for cancellation on account of conflict with the prior settlement
right of another may stand on the subsequent abandonment of the
adverse claim. VIII–461
The term “homestead laws” in the third section of the act of June
14, 1878, is used in a generic sense, and will embrace the prečmp-
tion law. V–591
May be canceled where the executor and sole devisee files relinquish-
ment, and it appears that compliance with law can not be shown
within the life of the entry. VII–383
A claim under the acts of 1874 and 1878 is solely for the cultivation
of timber; if the land is used as capital, or for speculative or other
purposes inconsistent with the object of the acts, it is held in vio-
lation of law and is subject to forfeiture. II-329
An entry that has been made in the interest of another is fraudulent.
II–50
Not affected by acts of entryman in procuring another to be fraud-
ulently made in the name of his wife. I–136
Right of, accorded to highest bidder in case of simultaneous applica-
tions. III–555
Natural growth of timber precludes entry.
1–154; IV-111; VI—217,772
Land shown by field notes to be timber land not subject to entry.
- III–361
A natural growth of trees, valuable for domestic or commercial pur-
poses, excludes the section from the operation of the timber-culture
law. IX—288
Not allowed, though the land applied for has but few trees thereon
and is the only public land in the section, if the section is not
“ devoid of timber.” VIII–544; IX-182, 520
That the natural growth is small and has been partly destroyed by
fire does not affect the question as to whether the land is devoid
of timber. - III–144
A natural growth of timber excludes land from, though such growth
may require protection from fire to render it valuable. X–13
That the natural growth of timber is restricted by annual fires does
not render the section containing such growth Subject to entry.
W–689
Whether a given section is devoid of timber may be determined by
inquiring whether nature has provided timber which in time will
become an adequate supply. II–267
The number of trees required at final proof a guide in deterinining
whether land is excluded from entry by reason of the natural
growth. III–437
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 145
YV. TIMBER, CULTURE–Continued.
“An adequate supply "exists under the rule in Blenkner v. Sloggy to
the exclusion of an entry where the natural growth is equivalent to
the amount required to be cultivated by the entryman. III–144
No arbitrary rule can be adopted in determining whether land is sub-
ject to. IX—161
Former rulings of the Department on the phrase “devoid of timber,”
cited and compared. VIII–467
The phrase “devoid of timber” should be construed as meaning land
practically so; no arbitrary rule can be formulated to cover every
CàSé. VIII–467
Character of land at date of, determines whether it is properly sub-
ject to such appropriation. IX—623
The departmental construction of the timber-culture act prevailing
when the entry is made must be accepted in determining whether
the land is “devoid of timber.” IX–95
Should not be allowed on the ground that the rulings of the Depart-
ment recognized the land as subject thereto when the application
was made, when in fact the land was not “devoid of timber.”
VI-772
Should not be canceled on the ground that the land is not “devoid
of timber,” if allowed under rulings in force, and the entryman
thereafter proceeds to comply with the law.
V–261; v1–225; VII–75; VIII–399, 534; Ix–622; x–190
Rights acquired under former rulings as to the character of land sub-
ject to entry not disturbed. V–261,696
The present construction of the act as to lands subject to entry there-
under should not be enlarged to protect entries not allowed under
the former construction. X—190
Should not be allowed if the returns show timber in the section; but
a hearing may be had, if the correctness of the return is ques-
tioned, to determine whether the land is subject to entry.
- VIII–467; IX—437
Where applicant proves that the markings on the plats, showing tim-
ber, were erroneous, entry should be allowed as of date of applica-
tion. II–850
Land not excluded from, by a scanty growth of brush lining the
banks of a small stream that passes through the section. VIII–534
Where the timber growing in a section is confined to fixed limits, with
no prospect of spreading, and is inadequate in quantity (500 trees),
entry is allowed. II–268
May be made where there are but a hundred, or a half acre, of trees
confined to the margin of a stream. II–274
May be made where the trees, confined to a point of land between
two sloughs, were dead, dying, or decaying at the top. II–273
10464—10
146 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
XV. TIMBER CULTURE –Continued.
Made on land containing cottonwood trees, when such trees were
held not to be timber trees, is legal. I–165
May be made where the trees, confined to the margin of a stream, at
maturity become unfit for use as timber. II–272, 274
Not allowed for land made “devoid of timber" by the removal of a
natural growth. - II-270; V-303.
Land naturally devoid of timber subject to, although it may have
been broken, VII–373
The act of 1874 did not specify the character of land subject to entry,
but left such matter to the regulation of the General Land Office.
I–165
Married Woman can not make. I–127
May be made by a deserted wife (with children) as the head of a
family. II–311
Not allowed to a married woman as a “deserted wife” on proof of
temporary absences of the husband, and non-cohabitation for a
year. WI–296
The marriage of a single woman subsequent to application, but prior
to action thereon, does not invalidate. I-131
Rights of deceased claimant descend to the heirs and not to the
widow. I-121, 127, 136
Right of, in the heirs where the applicant dies before the status of
the land is determined. W–422
Rights of the widow under Kansas laws amount to a moiety of the
husband's estate. I–149 :
The sole devisee of a deceased entryman considered as a “legal rep-
resentative.” VIII–452
For the heirs may be made by one of them without power of attor.
ney from the others. W–42
Entryman not required to reside in the State or Territory wherein
the land is situated. I–148
Equitable Adjudication. (See Timber and Stone Act.)
I. GENERALLY.
II. DESERT LAND ENTRY.
III. HOMESTEAD ENTRY.
IV. MINERAL ENTRY.
V. PREßMPTION ENTRY.
VI. PRIVATE ENTRY.
º VII. FINAL PROOF.
I. GENERALITY.
Board of, how organized. IV-156
The board of, has exclusive jurisdiction within the sphere of the
powers conferred upon it by statute. I-411; VIII–87
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 147
I. GENERALLY-Continued.
No appeal lies from the decision of. I–411
The power of the board to confirm may be exercised at any time after
the defect if the case is in condition for the issue of patent in due
COll I’Se. I–99
The authority of the board is confined to entries so far complete in
themselves that when the defects on which they are submitted
have been cured by its favorable action they pass at once to pat-
ent. IX—230
An entry should not be submitted before it has been perfected by the
payment of the purchase price and issuance of final certificate.
IX—230
Patent should be surrendered on application for confirmation of entry
which has passed to patent. VI–314; VIII–183
Entries submitted for, should be placed under the rule appropriate
thereto, or submitted as “special.” X–299
In submitting an entry for, under authority of a departmental deci-
sion, the authority may be noted, but the appropriate rule should
be stated or the entry placed under the special provision. X-299
The board may, on showing of fraud, revoke its confirmation. I–411
Adverse claim bars action of the board. I–78
A contestant’s preference right is in the nature of an adverse claim.
I–78
Not defeated by an adverse entry made after published notice of the
prečmptor's intention to submit final proof. IX-215
One who attempts to prečmpt land included within a supposed defect-
ive private entry is not the “rightful claimant” named in Rule 13.
IV—156
The plea of entry in good faith and ignorance of the law available
before the board of equitable adjudication. III–190
Does not extend to an entry for more than 160 acres, unless the quan-
tity entered is as near that amount as existing subdivisions will
allow. VII–21
Entries to be confirmed where the fault is not with the purchaser.
IV—156
Jurisdiction of the board does not extend to case of inexcusable fail-
ure to coin ply With the law. IV—347
Invalid entry should not be submitted to the board. VII–236
Additional rules provided applicable to desert-land entries. WI–799
Additional rules of, 31, 32, and 33. X-502
Entry on railroad land confirmed where company made default at
hearing. I–465
II. DESERT LAND ENTRY. (See Entry, subtitle Desert Land.)
Additional rules. VI-799
148 DIGEST OF DAND DECISIONS.
II. DESERT LAND ENTRY-Continued.
Rule 29 provides for confirmation of desert entries where final proof
and payment were not made within the statutory period.
Ix–231, 631
Rule 29 applicable where failure to make desert proof within the stat-
utory period was the result of ignorance, accident, or mistake, and
no adverse claim exists. VII–247
Bule 30 applicable where failure to reclaim and make proof under
desert entry within the statutory period was the result of ignorance,
accident, or mistake, or of obstacles which could not be overcome,
and no adverse claim exists. VII–247
Rule 30, covering desert-land entries in which reclamation and proof
were not made within the statutory period. VIII–574
III. HOMESTEAD ENTRY. (See Entry, subtitle Homestead.)
The board of equitable adjudication takes cognizance of entries made
by a deserted wife, or by minor child, as an agent. II–81
A widow allowed to enter land covered by her husband's entry that
was canceled on relinquishment, subject to confirmation by the
board. III–191
Rule 24, covering cases where the homesteader has failed to establish
residence within the period required. VIII–568
Commuted homestead entry should be referred to the board of equi-
table adjudication if residence was not established within six months
from date of original. VII–488; VIII–566; x–88
A homestead entry may be referred to the board of equitable adjudi-
cation where the claimant, through circumstances beyond con-
trol, failed to establish residence within six months from date of the
original entry. VII–351
A homestead entry should be submitted to the board of equitable
adjudication when final proof is not made within the life of the orig-
inal entry. VII–384
Where a homestead entryman deeded the land to another, after the
act of June 15, 1880, and the latter applied to purchase under the
act of that date, the claim was sent to the board for confirmation.
* III–190
IV. MINERAL ENTRY. (See Mining Claim.)
Where the claimant has complied with all the requirements of law,
save in the time of payment and entry, a reference of the claim to
the board of equitable adjudication is unnecessary. II–725
Board of, may confirm mineral entry under section 2457, Revised
Statutes. W–513
W. PREEMPTION ENTRY. (See Entry, subtitle Prečmption.)
In suspended prečmption entries, where the error arises from igno-
rance, accident, or mistake, and the land is held by a transferee.
VIII–489
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 149
V. PREEMPTION ENTRY_Continued.
Reference to board suggested in case of entry canceled in 1849 for
supposed conflict with a private claim. # IV—187
VI. PRIVATE ENTRY. (See Private Entry.)
Rule 11 covers private entries erroneously allowed for tracts not
offered. WI–518
Rules 11 and 13, prescribed by the board, not annulled by section
2457, Revised Statutes. VIII–95
Rule 13 considered in its application to private cash entries.
VIII–410
Cash entry, voidable for want of restoration notice, confirmed in the
absence of fraud. Iv–157, 285
Rule 13 covers entries on lands that had once been offered, after-
wards temporarily withdrawn, and then released from reservation.
IX—536
VII. FINAL PROOF. (See Final Proof, subtitle Equitable Action.)
Case involving irregularity in final proof may be submitted for.
I–484
Rule 10 applied where final proof, through no fault of claimant, was
not submitted on the day advertised. WI–460
Rule 10 applied where final proof was not submitted on the day ad-
vertised, but no protestant appeared. WI–745
Equity.
Equity can not create a right which the law denies, and therefore
one without legal rights has no equities. II–80
Is not created by a settlement upon land in controversy. III–302
Not shown as against the pending prior application of another.
IV—335, 353
Estoppel. (See Private Claim ; Relinquishment.)
The United States can not be estopped by the frauds, not to say by
the crimes, of the public officials. II–797
The government, by repeated official acts, is thereafter estopped from
Questioning the correctness of such action. III–83
The rule of equitable estoppel upon the theory that loss should be
borne by that one of two innocent persons whose conduct, acts, or
omissions rendered the injury possible, can not be set up by the
purchasers of lands acquired under a void patent. II–797
Where contest is dismissed for premature filing, and the contestant
subsequently initiates another, he assents to the action, and is
bound by it. ſº II–69
150 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
Estoppel—Continued.
At an ea parte hearing, the local officers recommended cancellation
of the entry; the defendants did not appeal, but the commissioner
dismissed the contest, and the contestant appealed to the Secre-
tary; the contestant is estopped from denying the complete juris-
diction of the Secretary. II–29
IEvidence.
I. GENERALLY.
II. DEPOSITION.
III. RECORD.
IV. BURDEN OF PROOF,
V. SUFFICIENCY.
VI. PRESUMPTION.
I. GENERALLY. -
Must be reduced to writing and signed by witness at the time when
taken. III–105
Testimony taken in shorthand must be written out and signed by the
witness before it will be accepted. III–121
The examination of witnesses should be conducted as far as possible
in accordance with established rules of evidence, and local officers
may personally direct it in order to elicit all the facts. II—234
As to character of land, submitted by the State under section 2488,
Revised Statutes, must be taken before the surveyor-general.
VI–684
Neither local officer may, without specific instructions from the Land
Department, take testimony, or preside at the taking thereof, else-
where than in the local office. II–205
Testimony prepared by plaintiff’s attorney in his office may be sub-
mitted at the hearing, with right of cross-examination, if assented
to by defendant. II–225
Action suspended in certain cases where the evidence had been taken
before the attorney of record. III–98
Submitted on defective notice of contest may be accepted after new
notice, if the defendant does not respond thereto. VIII–558
Illegally taken not considered. IV-380, 537
Where contest is allowed pending a prior invalid contest, the con-
testant may not avail himself of the record in the prior contest;
there must be a new notice and a new trial. II–286
Taken in hearing held prematurely considered. IX—227
All testimony to be taken under the direct supervision of the district
officers when taken in towns where local offices are established.
III–128, 132, 160
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 151
I. GENERALLY-Continued.
Taken on protest must be forwarded to the General Land Office
whether there is an appeal or not. III–122
Submitted to the local office should be forwarded. IW–32
Prior to final action in a case before the local office, the case may be
re-opened for the submission of additional testimony. IX—252
Testimony available by copy in different cases. III–445
Taken in one case not to be considered in another. IV-274, 414
Offered in another case should not affect the rights of one not a party
therein. VII–497
The facts and issues in one case can not be considered in another
and independent case. Ix–497, 503
Local office must not exclude. I–106
Vexatious and irrelevant cross-examination of witnesses should be
prevented, unless the party making it is willing to pay the cost of
transcribing it. II–196, 232, 234; Ix–130
The local officers have no authority to exclude, but may summarily
put a stop to, obviously irrelevant questioning. IX—130
Obviously irrelevant matter excluded from the record. IV-385
Of little value where the witness declines to answer on cross-exami-
nation. IV—505
Testimony of witness who refuse to submit to proper cross-examina.
tion should not be considered. III–452; v–599
The local office has no authority to compel the attendance of wit-
nesses. . II–223
II. DEPOSITION.
Taken by deposition on due notice to the opposite party. I–132
The local officers may direct testimony to be taken before an officer
designated by them. IX—209
Taken by deposition must be in conformity with the rules of practice.
III–584
Order for taking, should be made of record. W–212
Depositions can not be admitted if taken without due notice or with-
out furnishing the opposite party a copy of the interrogatories.
III–584; IV-377; VII–433
In taking depositions ten days allowed for filing cross-interrogatories.
I–106
In taking, the cross-interrogatories to be filed cover all right of
cross-examination. IV—377
Testimony must be taken at the time and place named in the notice,
and if taken without notice will not be considered. III–195
When taken under Rule 35 thirty days' notice not necessary.
IV—540
To be taken near the land in controversy under Rule 35. IV-440
Time may be extended for taking, under Rule 35. IV—540
152 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
II. DEPOSITION.—Continued.
Rule 35, as amended, contemplates the taking of testimony before
United States commissioner, etc., in contested cases, as well as in
hearings ordered by the Commissioner. Local officers must exer-
cise discretion in the former class of cases in allowing it to be taken
elsewhere than at the local office. II-231
Under Rule 35, as amended, the contestant is not required to file
cross-interrogatories, as in cases of depositions, under Rules 23 to
28; the officer taking the testimony is to be governed by Rules 36
to 42, and he may allow cross-examination in the absence of cross-
interrogatories. - II–235
Having been taken before the offices designated, under amended
Practice Rule 35, the district officers can not thereafter receive
supplementary testimony, but must consider the case on the evi-
dence taken. III–145
May be secured through depositions taken on commission issued
after hearing under Rule 35 of Practice. X–480
Taken before a commissioner must be sealed up and transmitted by
mail or express. V–362
When taken before a notary should be transmitted in the manner re-
Quired by law. VI—788
After procee, ſing to trial, and submitting testimony, it is too late to
apply for the taking of further testimony by deposition. VII-291
Objections as to the manner of taking testimony come too late when
raised for the first time on appeal. VII–291
Objection to the manner in which taken comes too late when raised
for the first time on motion for review. VII–497
An objection to the manner in which depositions are transmitted
comes too late where raised for the first time on appeal to the De-
partment. X—339
Irregularity in the submission of, can not be urged on appeal by one
who, after such objection, proceeds with the trial and submits tes-
timony on his own behalf. X–169
Objection to a deposition, on the ground that it was taken without
due notice, should be made at the hearing to be considered on ap-
peal. VII–447
Though irregularly taken, will be considered when no objection was
made at the proper time. I–474
Officers selected to take, should not be open to the charge of bias or
prejudice. VIII–534; x—436
Objection to the officer appointed to take testimony should be made
before the testimony is submitted. VIII–534
Testimony in a contest may be taken before an officer designated
by the local office. IX—209
Testimony taken pending an order of continuance, and before a no-
tary not properly designated, will not be considered. WI-440
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 153
II. DEPOSITION.—Continued.
Commissioner not authorized to take, of witnesses not specified in
the application for his appointment. IX—135
Depositions retained by attorney before filing will not be considered.
W–362
Taken before an attorney of one of the parties will not be considered.
III–250
Evidence taken before a stenographer, on agreement, is not a “depo-
sition ” within the meaning of Rule 56. IV—208
Rule 35 to be followed in proceedings arising on the submission of
final proof. VII–315
Officers before whom testimony is taken under Rule 35 are governed
by the rules applicable to trials before the local office. X–433
III. RECORD.
Records of Executive Departments kept as evidence of transactions,
not for purposes of notice. I–20
The judicial records of a State, how established. V-158
The decision of a State court is accepted in the Department as in the
courts of the United States. W–158
Certificate as to record facts not accepted in place of transcript.
IV-510
Record facts can not be plead as “newly discovered,” for the purposes
of a new trial. IV—512
The facts of record are to be considered with other evidence. III–193
Furnished in one case, may be accepted in a subsequent ea parte mat-
ter. VIII–233; IX—48
Ea; parte not accepted to defeat the records of the local office. x–256
Parol testimony to contradict record date of patent not admissible.
X-343
Matter of record not impeached by an unverified statement. VIII–294
Unauthenticated copy of a procès verbal not admissible as. W–577
IV. BURDEN OF PROOF.
In proceeding against an entry the burden of proof is upon the gov-
eriitherit. v–1, 22, 171, 371; WI–432; VII–374; VIII–526
Rule as to burden of proof not changed by the circular of July 31,
1885. W–372
In a hearing on a special agent's report the burden of proof is upon
the government. IX—340
Burden of proof rests with the party attacking an entry.
I–129, 146, 477; IV—62, 80; VI-142, 398, 432, 660
Contestee to proceed only after the establishment of a prima facie
CàS0, W–59
Burden of proof is upon one attacking the official return of surveys.
- VIII–440, 467, 555
154 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
IV. BURDEN OF PROOF-Continued.
Burden of proof on the party attacking returns of surveyor-general.
+ W–280
Burden of proof is upon one alleging priority of right as against a
subsisting entry. VIII–623
Burden of proof is with an applicant for re-instatement. I–77
On prima facie case made, the burden of proof shifts to the defense.
W–363
In case of special defense, the burden shifts to the defendant.
- IV—542
In proceedings involving forfeiture the same strictness of proof is
required as under a penal statute. I–146, 153
The burden is upon the contestant to establish his charge by a pre-
ponderance of. Ix–299, 538
A clear preponderance of, justifies judgment of cancellation. WI–483
Preponderance of, required to justify forfeiture. VI-140, 483.
In a contest the matter in dispute must be decided upon a prepon-
derance of the evidence, whether parol or record, or both parol
and record. - IX—213
V. SUFFICIENCY.
Should be confined to the charge as laid in the information.
1–113, 470; IV—299, 424; VI—368
Must follow the charge as laid. v–177, 209, 329
Relevancy of, can only be questioned by the defendant. V–639
Admissibility of, dependent upon the charge under investigation.
V–299
Established rules of, followed where fraud is charged. IV–64
Of offer to sell the land admissible under a charge of fraudulent
entry. Iv–369; v-313
Best of which the case is susceptible must be produced. IV—510
Of secondary character not received without proper foundation laid
therefor. I–440
Hearsay, when admissible in proof of death. WI–241
Mere opinion not received as, where facts can be had.
IV—292; VII–441
Iºla parte testimony not considered. Iv–89, 168, 201, 229; V-590
Affidavits filed after case is closed in the local office not considered
except on motion for rehearing. V–425
Final proof not treated as, on hearing. Iv–275; VI-285
On hearing, the report of a special agent is not.
Iv–65, 340; V-1, 22, 170; VI-285
Statement of special agent made privately to local officers should not
be accepted as. IV-228
Unsworn statement of special agent should not be admitted as.
WI-265
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 155
V. SUFFICIENCY-Continued.
The report of a register based on an inspection of the land, made
without notice to the parties and after the case is closed, is not
admissible. VI–626; VIII–38
The fact of compliance with law after affidavit of contest is filed, but
before legal notice thereof, goes to the weight, not to the admissi-
bility of the testimony. IX—299
Admissible as to acts performed before service of notice.
v–299, 315; v1–300
As to acts performed after the initiation of contest will not be con-
sidered as affecting the case made by the contestant.
IV—542; V–351
In hearing ordered on special agent's report the entryman may show
acts in compliance with law performed after notice of the hearing.
VII–486
As to subsequent compliance not material on a hearing ordered to
determine priorities, and where the party to be affected thereby is
not offering final proof. WI–368
As to motive of contestant in attacking an entry not material. V-296
Allegations in affidavit for continuance as to the testimony of an
absent witness should be considered as, on admission, that the
witness would so testify if present. Iv–377, 394; VI-27
Sufficiency of, on which judgment was rendered, can not be questioned
collaterally. WII–400
Where claimant's affidavit, asking a hearing on the ground of aban-
donment, admits non-compliance with law, the claim will be can-
celed without hearing. II–445
Ignorance of the effect of acts may be considered in determining
questions of good faith. - VI—169
An agreed statement of facts precludes the introduction of evidence
to contradict it. II--571
Stipulation of parties that investigation shall be limited to the six
months preceding initiation of contest does not deprive the gov-
ernment of the full value of the information elicited at the hearing.
II–96
May be considered though the contestant withdraws.
W–40, 385; VII–394
Government may take advantage of evidence brought out in a Con-
test, whatever may be the rights of the parties as against each
other. VI-27; VII-395; IX—391
For the impeachment of a witness admissible. I–105.
Of interested party to be taken most strongly against him. W–56
A will executed in articulo mortis, though unauthorized by law, will
not be presumed fraudulent. WI–30
As to statements made by deceased affecting the validity of his entry
not admitted. - WI–30
156 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
V. SUFFICIENCY –Continued.
The statements of a party to his attorney are not admissible in evi-
dence as against the interest of Said party. VII–136
VI. PRESUMPTION. -
Presumptive, as to continuance of life. IV—326
There is no presumption of death until seven years after the home-
stead entryman's disappearance. II–120
Of bad faith is raised by an attempted sale of a homestead. II–144
Of fraudulent inception of an entry (timber culture) arises from its
early relinquishment for value. II–92
Of forgery may not arise from a mere comparison of signatures, with-
out allegation or other proof. II-240
Allegation under oath, corroborated, that claimant was informed by
local officers that he could not make a certain entry, if uncontro-
verted, presumed to be true. II–37, 246, 247
The payment of fees, which is prerequisite to a right, will be presumed
where the contrary does not appear. II–323
Where the prečmptor is required to make payment by a certain date,
and the record does not show the payment, it is presumed that he
failed to make it. II–526
In the absence of allegation or showing to the contrary it is presumed
that the officers (intrusted with the control of a survey) have prop-
erly discharged their duty. II–465
Where mineral entry had lain dormant for seven years, uncanceled, all
the antecedent basic proof was presumably regular and sufficient.
II–769
Jurisdiction will be presumed where the records of the court do not
affirmatively show a want of it. II–364
Where there is no adverse claim or evidence of fraud, and the evi.
dence as to proper discovery of mineral is conflicting, such discov-
ery will be presumed in support of an entry already made. II–742
Statements not controverted made as the basis of a motion of which
due notice has been given, taken as true. WI-240
Fees. (See Accounts; Payment ; Practice, subtitle, Costs ; Repayment.
Circular instructions. I–517, 518, 519, 523, 524; -
II–660, 662, 665; III–58, 605; V-569, 577; Ix–655
Are intended by law to pay the expenses of the local officers, and are
not part of the price of land, or proceeds arising from the “sales
of public land.” II-695
Fee bill to be kept posted in a conspicuous place in the local office.
I–518
Of the local officers that would increase their salaries must be turned
into the Treasury. V–569, 577
Belonging to the register should be paid to the receiver. I–524
None allowed for correspondence. I–519
D1GEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 157
Fees–Continued.
Local officers may not demand a fee for answering a verbal or written
inquiry concerning the status of a tract. II–198
No charge for information concerning a tract of land is to be made,
unless in the form of plats and diagrams. II–660
To surveyors-general for certified copies, etc. W–190
Local officers may charge less, but not more, than the fees fixed by
circular of July 20, 1883, for preparing plats and diagrams. II–661
For registered mail matter specified. e III–140
Disbursing agents to pay fees on registered mail from the advances
for contingent expenses. III–108
May not be charged in offices not consolidated for abstracts from the
records except for plats and diagrams and lists of taxable lands.
II–655, 671
For examining testimony, furnishing transcripts, etc. I–517
Or commissions not allowed for additional entries made under the
act of March 3, 1879. I–525
Fees allowed for reducing testimony to writing, for plats and dia-
grams, for transcripts of records, for examining and approving tes.
timony in final homestead cases; receiving and accounting for fees.
II–664; V-579
No fees are to be charged for reducing or examining testimony, for
the writing contained in the original entry papers, or for certifi-
cates and receipts in final proofs. II–662
Registers and receivers are each entitled to a fee of 1 per cent of the
amount received for canceled military bounty land warrants. III–145
Bule for computing the fees due for railroad selections. II–662
The fees provided in section 2238, clause 7, Revised Statutes, are to
be paid on all the lands located by the railroad company (Burling-
ton and Missouri River), which may fairly be construed to be all
the lands ascertained to belong to the company under the grant.
II–669
A fee of $1 is not payable by the State in original swamp selections,
but is payable in indemnity Swamp locations. II–667
For State selections must be paid before approval and posting. I–537
On allowance of second homestead entry the claimant is not entitled
to credit for fee and commissions paid on first, but should apply
for the repayment thereof. II–660; x–469
As to credit for fee and commissions in case of canceled entry where
application is made to reënter the same tract. III–498, 605
No fees may be charged for testimony not reduced to writing by the
local officers personally, or by their clerks, or (in final homestead
cases) by a judge or clerk; the various statutes regarding such
fees cited. II–665
Local officers are allowed the same, for examining proofs made before
judges or clerks of courts, whether approved or not, as are allowed
by law for taking the same. III–58
158 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
I'ees–Continued.
Local officers are entitled to, for testimony reduced to writing in final
homestead or preemption proofs whether the entries are allowed or
not. III–58
Not to be charged for the examination and approval of testimony
given before judge or clerk of court except in final homestead
CàSéS. W–580
Local officers not authorized to collect, for reducing to writing the
testimony in prečmption final proof, unless such service is actually
performed by them. IX—60
Local officers not entitled to, for examining and approving testimony
in prečmption cases taken before judge or clerk of court.
- II–659; III–160
The district officers are entitled to, for testimony actually reduced to
writing by them or their clerks, but not for that merely examined
by them. III—125
Duplicates of homestead and prečmption proofs are not required by
law, and any charge exacted for them is illegal. II–671
Indian homesteads under act of July 4, 1884, allowed without pay.
ment of. III–91
For writing done in making proof on mineral application. I–517, 518
Allowed for acting on mineral application. I—517
For notice of cancellation to be paid to the receiver. v–569, 579
Registers may not retain the fee of $1 authorized to be collected for
notice of cancellation of an entry, unless such notice has been
actually given. II–660
Where lands have been transferred to a new district pending contests
against them, the officers of said district are entitled to the fees
for notices of cancellation. II–222
There is no preliminary fee of $1 to be paid at initiation of contest;
the fees allowed are provided for in Rules 54 to 65. II–661
Fees and commissions deposited, with application to enter, prior to
cancellation of existing entry, give no right to the land. II–49
The Land Department does not summon Witnesses, nor exercise any
control over the question of fees to them. II–223
District officers can not employ clerks at the expense of the govern-
ment for the purpose of reducing testimony to writing. III–105
Local officers not entitled to, when testimony in contest is taken else-
where. - I–519
A per diem fee for hearing cases or taking testimony must not be
charged by local Officers. III–105
In proceedings by the government against an entry a witness who is
summoned by the claimant and testifies in his behalf is not en-
tiled to any fees from the United States. X-385
For reducing testimony to writing and clerical Services in contest.
V-245, 569, 579
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 159
Fees–Continued.
The whole charge for taking down and writing out testimony, is
limited to one charge of 15 cents for each one hundred words.
III–108
Filing. (See Application ; Coal Land; Entry, subtitle No. XIV; Pre-
emption.)
I. GENERALLY.
II. AMENDMENT.
III. SECOND.
IV. OSAGE.
I. GENERALLY.
Can not be made until the land has been surveyed and the plat filed
in the local Office. v–275; x–195
Name of applicant should be noted on the declaration. W–199
Office of under the prečmption law, is to give notice that the settler
intends to purchase the land described therein, and such notice,
during the statutory period, protects the claim as against subse-
Quent settlers. I–406; V-249, 473, 632; Ix–41
A prečmption filing, which is a declaration of one's intention to
claim a tract of land, confers a mere preferred right against third
persons, but none against the United States; land covered by it
is public land, and is open to settlement or entry, subject only to
the preferred right of prečmption. II–581
Does not constitute an appropriation of the land. I–30, 434, 435;
Iv–404: VII-280; VIII–224; Ix–264
There is no difference in principle between the case of a filing made
of record and of one offered but erroneously rejected. II–37
Rejected, on appeal, no appropriation of the land. IV—403
Prima facie valid raises a presumption as to the fact of the claim and
its validity. I–379; IV-402; x–645
Circular regulations with respect to “expired ” filings under the pre-
emption law. III–576
An “expired prečmption filing” is no bar to the disposition of public
land. III–317
That has expired without proof and payment gives rise to the pre-
sumption that the claim has been abandoned. X–645
Failure to file declaratory statement will not defeat right of purchase
in the absence of adverse claim. W–632
Failure to file a declaratory statement will not defeat settlement
rights as against the government. VII–131
Is not a condition precedent to the right of prečmption, but a pro-
tection against Subsequent settlers. IV—514; VIII–433
Declaratory statement must be filed within statutory period to pro-
tect the settler. II–578; III-455; WI-391
160 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS,
I. GENERALLY-Continued.
Failure to make, within statutory period defeats the right of pur-
chase in the presence of an intervening adverse claim. X–485
IRight of prečmption by one who has failed to file in time, not de-
feated by the intervening homestead entry of another who has not
complied with the law. W–188
Failure to file in time does not defeat the claim in the absence of
another settler who has complied with the law. I-357, 380, 497;
W–188
The words “next settler” in section 2265 are not necessarily confined
to a prečmptor. I–380
Purchaser at private entry held not a “settler” that can take ad-
vantage of default in. VIII–346
Default in, for unoffered land, forfeits the claim only in favor of the
“next settler” who has complied with the law. VIII–346
Default in, for offered land, does not defeat the right of purchase, if
cured prior to the intervention of an adverse right. X-387
IFailure to make, does not Warrant the presumption that the settle-
ment was not lawful. - W–653
Though made after the legal period, is valid, if before the interven.
tion of an adverse claim. I–142
Where the claimants are equally in laches as to filing, the land is
awarded to the prior record and settlement. I-438; III–347
And settlement confer an inchoate right under the prečmption law.
IX—41
To be valid, must be founded upon a prior actual settlement.
I-432, 439; II–621; V–188, 289
Without settlement voidable. WI–792
Filing before settlement cured by settlement prior to the inception of
an adverse right. III–374, 499; IV-424, 451
Held to precede settlement where the declaratory statement is made
out and mailed prior to performing any act of Settlement. VIII–331
A filing based upon settlement made in trespass is a nullity. III–188
Of one who has exhausted his prečmptive right is invalid.
IV—560; V-16
But one allowed a prečmptor for lands open to settlement and entry.
v–16; VI-298, 617,785, 792; VII–395; VIII–258
Though illegal, exhausts the prečmptive right. WI–298
The right to file exhausted by filing made through agent. III–391
Made without the authority or knowledge of the prečmptor does not
exhaust the preemption right. II–620; VII–503; Ix–129
A declaratory statement filed with the receiver, during the temporary
absence of the register, and duly made of record, Serves the pur-
pose intended by law and exhausts the right of filing. IX—41
Of alien is invalid. - I–445
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 161
I. GENERALLY —Continued.
Of one qualified in the matter of citizenship relates back to settle-
ment and legalizes the same, though made when the settler was an
alien. VIII–541
Made by one entitled to the rights of citizenship on compliance with
section 2168, Revised Statutes, will not be canceled if the require-
ments of said section are subsequently observed. VIII–60
Made during infancy is invalid, but the attainment of majority, prior
to the inception of an adverse right, cures the invalidity. VI-602
Failure of both the settler and his executor to make, until after the
discharge of the latter, precludes the assertion of a prečmption
claim. WI–671.
Should not be allowed, on allegation of prior settlement right, for
land covered by the entry of another without a hearing to determine
priorities. v–526; v1–98, 330; VII–140; VIII–528, 623
May be allowed subject to the preference right of a contestant. VII–46
For land included within a former indemnity withdrawal, and cov-
ered by a pending selection, should not be allowed without due
notice to the railroad company. X—454
IFor land included within a prior indemnity selection should not be
recorded until final disposition of the selection. IX—250
Will be canceled where claim under is unsuccessfully set up to defeat
the final proof of another. W–260
Treated as taking effect on land when open to settlement, though not
subject thereto when filed. VI—153
Prečmptor may file for 160 acres, though claiming less at settlement,
if contiguous tract is vacant. I-405
May be valid as to one part and invalid as to another part of the land
covered by it; as where A surrendered possession of the west half
of a quarter, and B, who filed for the whole of it, took possession
of the West half alone. II–635
Where the settler relinquishes the land in the face of a homestead
claim, he can not have his filing re-instated on ground that the
contract consideration for relinquishment was not paid by the
homestead claimant. II–621
For alleged swamp land. Circular of December 13, 1886. V-279
Disposition of papers in the local office. Circular of December 4,
1889. IX—658
II. AMENDMENT.
Amendments of, allowed with great caution. VII—300
Amendment of, must be governed by the original intention of the
settler. W–643
Right to amend cut off by the intervening claim of another.
II–38, 576; IV-387
10464—11
162 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
II. AMENDMENT—Continued.
May be amended to correspond with the actual settlement of the
claimant, in case of honest mistake. IX—98
Can not be amended in the presence of an intervening adverse right
to include land excluded by former for want of contiguity. VI-621
In case of mistake, and in the absence of intervening rights, the lands
intended to be taken may be substituted for those mistakenly filed
upon or entered. VI–7S5
May not be amended where made for the land intended, though other
land would have been included if the prečmptor had known it was
subject to entry. VII–29S
Amendment denied where through want of diligence the true status
of the land was not known. IV—496
Amendment of, not defeated by failure of the local officers to make a
proper record of the application therefor. IX—98
Circular regulations with respect to amendment of. VIII–187
III. SECOND.
Second, allowed only after careful scrutiny. III–161
Second, not allowed in the absence of good faith. IV—3S"
Second, allowed for the same tract in the absence of adverse claim
(Overruled, 2 L. D., 854.) I–436, 439
Second, for same tract, with settlement alleged after sale of home-
stead from which the prečmptor had removed, not allowed. VI-767
Second for same tract not allowed. V–413
Second, not permissible, though the first may have been allowed prior
to the adoption of the Revised Statutes.
Iv–189; vi.1-305; x–18S,336
Second, prohibited, though the first was on unoffered land. VI—20
Second, not allowed under section 6, act of March 3, 1853, except
where the first was made before the passage of that act. VI—2()
Second, allowed where first was on unoffered land, made prior to June
22, 1874, and canceled on relinquishment. (See 4 L. D. 189). I-442
Section 2261, Revised Statutes, is a reproduction of former law with
respect to second filings. IV—189
Second, prohibited by section 2261, not only on lands subject to pri.
vate entry, but on all lands subject to preemption. VI-617
IRight to make second, recognized, if through no fault of the prečmp-
tor consummation of title was not practicable under the first.
Iv–9; IX-41; x–33S
Second, may be allowed where, through no fault of the prečmptor, the
first fails by reason of conflict with a prior adverse claim.
v–643: VI–168, 298, 611; VII–323
Second, allowed where the first was illegal. I–439; IV-116
Second, not allowed where the first failed through the fault of the
prečmptor. IV-114; VII–30, 289, 316
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 163
III. SECOND–Continued.
Though the first was voidable, yet as its failure was the fault of the
settler, a second will be denied. - VI-792
Second, permissible where the first was for land not subject thereto,
and the prečmptor in good faith abandoned the same on discovery
of such fact. VIII–528
Second, allowed where first covered worthless land, and due care was
manifest. I–433
Second not allowed on account of untillable character of land, where
there has been no cultivation. III–379
A prečmptor may file but one declaratory statement on the same or
on another tract; applied to a case where second filing was offered
because settler found it impossible to raise good crops on his claim.
II–854
The right to make second, may be accorded where failure to perfect
title under the first was due to the ill health of the prečmptor. X-17
Second, not allowed to one who after transmutation of the first, re-
linquished the homestead entry. VI—570
Second, allowed where the first did not correspond with the settle-
ment. III–93
Second, allowed where the first was for land subsequently included
within an Indian reservation. I—450
Second, may stand when made in good faith, and allowed in accord-
ance with existing rulings, where the first was made through mis-
take and subsequently relinquished. X–22
Second, allowed where the first was illegal for want of settlement, but
good faith appeared in alleging settlement. WI–168
Second, permissible where the prečmptor is by armed violence com-
pelled to abandon the land covered by the first. IX–85
Second, allowed where the first, by mistake, was for land not settled
upon, and the right of amendment was defeated by an adverse.
claim. VII–38
Second, not allowed where the first was made upon a tract claimed
by another, in the belief that such claim would be relinquished.
III–181
Second, not allowed to one who made first, before declaring intention
to become a citizen, but subsequently cured the defect. WI–15
Second, not allowed to one who, after attaining his majority, trans-
muted a prečmption claim based on a filing made during infancy.
WI–602
Second, not allowed where the first was illegal because the prečmptor
removed from land of his own in the same State to reside on the
land embraced within said filing. VII–316
Right to make second, not considered without application for some
tract. IV—310; V-251
164 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
IV. OSAGE. (See Indian Lands.)
Circular regulations. W–581
On Osage land exhausts right under the prečmption law. W–537
Second, not permissible to one who has formerly exercised the right.
VII–30
Second Osage, permissible where the first is in good faith abandoned
on account of the intervening adverse claim of another. X–150
Osage, must be made within three months after settlement to afford
protection. W–581; IX—281
Time under amended Osage, begins to run from the date when the
amendment is allowed, X—624
Final Proof. (See Alienation ; Naturalization ; Res Judicata.)
I, GENERALLY.
II. NOTICE.
III. PLACE OF TAKING; OFFICER.
IV. WITNESSES.
V. TRANSFEREE.
VI. CONTINUANCE.
VII. PROTEST.
VIII. ADVERSE CLAIM.
IX. EQUITABLE ACTION.
X. COMMUTATION.
XI. DESERT LAND.
XII. HOMESTEAD.
XIII. OSAGE.
XIV. PRE-EMPTION.
XV. TIMBER, CULTURE.
I. GENERALLY.
Rules to be observed in passing upon. V-426; Ix–123
Circular of December 15, 1885, directing manner of. IV—297
Circular instructions of September 17, 1883. II–199
To be submitted on the new blank forms. Circular of November 2,
1886. W–220
Circular of February 21, 1887, amended. VIII–3
Circular of March 30, 1886, regulating prečmption and commutation.
- IW-473
Under section 2294, Revised Statutes, as amended, circular of June
25, 1890. X–687
(See also tables of circulars and instructions, page 63.)
The word “district,” as used in the acts of March 3, 1877, and June
9, 1880, means judicial district, not land district. VI-138; VIII–509
Regularity of, should be determined by the regulations in force at
the date of its submission. VIII–512
How made for land in two districts. I-438; II–90
IDIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 165
I. GENERALLY-Continued.
Proceedings On, distinguished from contest. II-580; III–399
Should not be submitted pending contest. V–176; Ix–279, 299, 322
When rejected because made during contest, the new proof, though
confined to the same period as that embraced within the former,
may be accepted and held to apply by relation to the date of the
suspended entry. VII–175
Taken without authority or notice is void. III–363
False swearing in making, punished. IV-211
Though technically complete, not always received. W–52
On rejection, reasons to be indorsed on application. I–483
Suspension of, pending further compliance, is in effect a rejection of.
VI-605
To be transmitted at once to the local office when taken elsewhere.
V–220
Local office may require additional. IV—197
Decision on, must be rendered if the claimant refuses to submit addi-
tional. V–429
The local office should thoroughly scrutinize, and test the reliability
of all proofs presented. III–211
Action of the local office in accepting, not conclusive on the govern-
ment. VI-265
Rejection of, by the General Land Office, final in the absence of ap-
peal or motion for review. V–421
Witnesses and claimants to be cross-examined. V–178
District officers should take cognizance of facts within their personal
knowledge in passing upon final proof. III–223
On direct examination being full and explicit, may be accepted, al-
though the cross-examination is not in compliance with the regu-
lations. WI–787
Under the circular of December 15, 1885, not fatally defective for
want of written cross examination if made before the local office
and accepted by it. IX—189
A certificate of the officer before whom the proof was taken that the
witnesses were duly cross-examined accepted under the circular of
IDecember 15, 1885. - W111—512
Not defeated by absence of jurat from cross-examination, when the
testimony was evidently sworn to. VI—787
Must be clear and explicit, showing compliance with the law in all
essential requirements. Iv–253; v1–120, 549
Good faith an essential in all cases. W–207
No fixed rule can be formulated as to what constitutes good faith.
VI–121, 310
Acts done on land prior to entry considered as indicative of good
faith. W–238
166 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
I. GENERALLY-Continued.
Absence from the land after the submission of, does not necessarily
indicate bad faith. WI–224
Good faith may be shown by acts performed after submission of.
- § IX—436
Submission of, at a particular time, in order to leave the land, not nec-
essarily inconsistent with good faith. VIII–508
Should receive special scrutiny when made within the shortest pos-
sible period. IV–347 ; V–349
Submission of fraudulent, conclusive of rights under the entry.
IX—527
When prematurely submitted, new proof will be required. VI—330
New proof must show compliance up to the time of its submission,
when the former proof was found insufficient on its merits. VI—155
When defective through no fault of claimant, new may be made,
showing compliance up to submission of former, though compliance
subsequently can not be shown. VI–28, 155
Taken before business hours on the day advertised is irregular, and
makes new proof necessary. VII–249
When new, is submitted pending appeal from the Commissioner's
rejection of the first, the Department will pass on the merits of
the case as shown by whole record. IX—436
If found insufficient, and bad faith is not apparent, supplemental
evidence may be submitted, in the absence of protest or adverse
claim. X-183
Allowed on proof, submitted after due notice, should not be canceled
on finding the evidence as to residence insufficient, but suspended,
and further proof required, - VIII–202
Supplemental, should be required where the testimony is evasive and
incomplete. IV—477; V–215; x–1
Supplemental, showing due compliance with law prior to the sub-
mission of the original, may be submitted in lieu of new proof,
where the entry was allowed, payment made, and the new proof not
called for until four years thereafter. X-213
On submission of supplemental proof a special agent may be present
and cross-examine the witnesses. X-30
Under act of Jauuary 31, 1885, made as other cases. IV—16
If the final certificate bears a date later than the proof, the entryman
may show by his own affidavit that he had not transferred the land
at the date of the certificate. IX—615
Proof of non-alienation between the date of submitting final proof
and issuance of certificate should not be required if such proof was
sufficient when made and the claimant had at such time complied
with the requirements of law. WIII–475
Having been lost, a duplicate may be substituted without republica-
tion. WI–794
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. - 167
I. GENERALLY —Continued.
An incorrect Statement as to citizenship, made under a misapprehen-
sion of the law, may be excused. WII–471
Evidence as to filing declaration of intention to become a citizen, furn-
ished in homestead proof, may be accepted in subsequent prečmp-
tion. VIII–233
New objections to residence shown, not raised by the Department,
after the claimant has fairly met those made by the General Land
Office. VI–606
When submitted may be attacked for improper absence, under the
act of June 4, 1880. I–434
Failure to submit in due time excused where the default was caused
by error of the local office. (See 3 L. D., 46.) 1–459
Regularly submitted, sworn to, and accepted by the local office, should
not be rejected for want of register's signature to the jurat. VI-147
Action of the General Land Office on, should cover the sufficiency
thereof, as well as other questions affecting its validity. VIII–612
Offered pending suspension of township plat. W–540
May be submitted on behalf of entryman under the homestead or
prečmption law, who has become insane, by any person authorized
to act for him during such disability. WI–550
An erroneous description of the land in the final affidavit and the
testimony of the witnesses will not make new proof necessary, the
land being properly described in the published notice, and the
proof intended for the land occupied. VI—782
Rights not prejudiced by delay in the issuance of final certificate.
v1–218; VII–292, 455; VIII–268; x–142
II. NOTICE.
Matters essential in notice of, may not be waived by the Land Depart-
ment. VI–111
The requirement as to publication of notice is statutory and can not
be waived. WI–345
Taken without notice is void. III–362
Notice of intention to make, is an invitation to all parties to appear
and show cause why the entry should not be allowed.
II-580, 594, 596; III–247; v-407, 587; v1–379
Publication of notice under act of March 3, 1879, similar to the
requirements of the mining law. I–108
The notice by publication of intention to make, is in harmony with the
notice required of contestants. III–141
Publication of notice and due proof thereof should appear. VII–488
Sufficiency of publication must be determined under the regulations
in force when the advertisement is made. VI—455
Posting in the register's office an essential. W–399
Publication of notice can not operate to revive a controversy settled
by a former decision between the same parties. II–594
168 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
II. NOTICE–Continued.
The published notice must state definitely before whom and at what
place the proof will be made. - v1–345; VII–197
A proper description of the land in the published notice is essential.
Af III–460; VII-467
New, required where the published notice did not properly describe
the land. WI-6
Misdescription of land in published notice requires republication,
when the proof may be accepted as made, in the absence of protest.
VI-705; VII-485, 539; IX—434; x–46S
Suspended for further notice in case of error in published descrip.
tion of land. IV–406
May be accepted as submitted after republication by the transferee,
where the land was misdescribed in the published notice. VIII–415
The Crosthwaite case cited and distinguished. WI–313
Six insertions of notice in weekly paper required.
I–056; III–112; WI–455
Under the circular of October 1, 1880, five insertions only were
required of notice published in a weekly paper. VI–455
Notices of, must be published in papers nearest the land.
III–155; V-503
Notice of, published in paper nearest the land by the usual route of
travel. I–108
Made upon publication in papers other than those nearest the land
must be rejected. III–155
New publication and proof required where the publication was not
made in the paper published nearest the land. VII–314
Notice of, to be published in established bona fide papers having an
actual and legitimate circulation in the vicinity of the land. III–52
Register to designate paper for publication of notice. III—J20
The local officers must designate, for the publication of notices of
final proof, reputable papers of general circulation nearest the
land applied for, the rates of which do not exceed the rates estab-
lished by local law for the publication of legal notices. II–20.5
Publication of notice must be in a bona fide newspaper in general cir-
culation, published nearest the land, whether such paper is pub-
lished in the county where the land is situated or otherwise. VII–59
Notices of, must be published in the newspaper proper, and not in
the supplement. III–155
Notice must be published in the paper designated, and proof made
on the day fixed. VII–232
Written interlineation of witness's name in published notice a fatal
defect. WI-379
New notice and proof required covering the testimony of a substi.
tuted witness. VII–327
Republication of notice required where the name of one of the wit.
nesses was not properly given in the published notice. VIII–204
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 169
*N
II. NOTICE–Continued.
Special notice of intention to submit should be given adverse claim-
ants of record. III–196; Ix–495
Usual notice of, sufficient as against the indemnity rights of a rail-
road. III–226
Notice by publication, without special citation of a railroad company,
held sufficient. III–277
Special notice of, should be given a railroad company that is asserting
a right under its grant. IV—256; Ix–71
Pending railroad selection of record entitles the company to special
notice of intention to Submit. V–396; VII–149
Must be taken at the time and place designated in the notice.
III–484; V–348, 361; WI-110, 156, 232
Made the following day sufficient, when by mistake Sunday is desig-
nated as the day for submission of. VIII–233
Taken at day later than first named is not open to objection, if the
change of date appears in subsequent publication duly made.
- IX–646
When not made on day fixed may be accepted in the absence of pro-
test, on republication and new affidavit covering the time up to
the date of entry. VII–417
The necessity for republication where the proof is not made on the
day fixed obviated by subsequent hearing. VII–559
Republication required, where not submitted at the time fixed and
the proceedings are continued, but not to a day certain. X–418
Preparation of part of the testimony, on the day before that fixed
for taking, does not affect regularity of, where it is completed at
the time and place, and before the officer designated. X–119
New, after republication, will be required where the proof is not
taken on the day fixed, and a portion thereof not taken before the
officer designated. VII–420
May be taken within ten days after the time advertised, where acci-
dent or unavoidable delay prevents submission on the day fixed.
(Act of March 2, 1889, and circular thereunder.) VIII–316, 581
Section 7, act of March 2, 1889, is retroactive, and legalizes proof
taken within ten days following the date advertised, in pending
cases, where unavoidable delay prevents compliance with the notice.
x-301, 597
Where the evidence of the witnesses is not taken before the officer
designated it may be accepted, after republication, in the absence
of objection. VII–20
If taken by an officer not named in the notice it must be at the time
and place designated, and the officer advertised must certify to the
absence of protest. VII–327
When made at the time and place designated in the notice, but not
before the officer named therein, may be accepted after republica-
tion in the absence of protest. WII-371
170 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
II. NOTICE–Continued.
In publishing notice of intention to submit, it is the fault of the reg-
ister if the proper officer before whom it will be taken is not desig-
nated therein. - VIII–483
New publication of notice required where the testimony was not taken
before the officer designated when, in the absence of protest, the
proof submitted may be accepted. WI–622
Accepted after new publication of notice and corroboratory affidavits
where the first notice is insufficient. V-503
Submitted on indefinite notice, may be submitted, after republication
in the absence of protest. IX—439; X-372, 587
Accepted, in absence of protest, after new advertisement, where sub-
mitted through fault of the local office, on defective notice, and due
compliance With law is shown. WI-345
Having been submitted without protest, and after due notice, further
advertisement is not required where supplemental proof is called
for. - VI–313
Order for new publication and proof should not be made before the
sufficiency of the proof submitted has been, in all respects, consid-
ered and adjudicated. IX—434
Where certificate has issued, and the proof is afterwards found de-
fective in the naatter of notice, new advertisement and proof will
be required showing compliance up to the date when the certificate
issued. VI-155, 382
Notice of intention to submit prečmption does not operate to prevent
the allowance of a homestead entry, for the land covered by the
filing. VIII–226
Published notice of application to make prečmption So far reserves
the land as to prevent its being properly entered by another pend-
ing consideration thereof. VIII–406, 414; IX—175, 215
III. PLACE OF TAKING ; OFFICER.
Testimony in final proofs taken by the local officers must be taken
at the local office, unless they have been otherwise expressly di-
rected by the Land Department. * II–204
|Under the acts of March 3, 1877, and June 9, 1880, must be taken
where the court is held and the seal kept. III–330
When made before clerk, under act March 3, 1877, he must certify to
absence of judge. II–100
May be taken before judges and clerks of court by special provision
of law. IV-211
Affidavit required in sections 2262 and 2301, Revised Statutes, when
made before probate judge must be certified by him as “clerk ex
Officio.” III–154
May be made before the proper officer of any court of record in the
judicial district within which the land is situated. WI–138; VIII–509
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 171
III. PLACE OF TAKING; OFFICER—Continued.
Where a county embraces territory in two land districts, a claimant
for land in one district may, under act of March 3, 1877, make proof
at the county seat in the other district. (See 1 L. D., 438.) II–90
The clerks of district courts in Dakota are authorized to take final
affidavits in homestead and prečmption cases, whether or not the
court holds sessions in the county. II–200
The affidavit may be made before the judge of a probate court in Da-
kota, at the county seat where the court is holden. II–224
In prečmption and homestead cases may be taken in Dakota before
clerks of court where no court is held. - V—458
Under the circular of March 30, 1886, a county judge in the State of
Nebraska is not authorized to take prečmption or commuted home-
stead. . IX—586
May be made in ex parte prečmption and commuted homestead cases
before a clerk of the court, though such officer appears as the attor-
ney of the applicant. (See 4 L. D., 299.) III–95
Commutation, made before a notary, may be accepted, where notice
of intention had been given, and the order for publication made
before the circular of March 30, 1886, reached the local office.
VII–345
Evidence of witnesses in desert entry must be taken before the local
Office. t III–246
Testimony of desert claimant and witnesses may be legally required
to be taken at the same time and place and before the same Officer.
VII–337
Evidence of desert claimant may be taken before officers other than
district. III–246
The claimant's affidavit and the testimony of the witnesses must be
taken at the same time and place under desert entry. X—598.
Claimant may be required to appear before the local office and submit
to a cross-examination (desert entry). VII—337
Officers authorized to take prečmption. IV—473
Prečmption final proof may be made before the clerk of a court, but
not the affidavit required by section 2262, Revised Statutes. (See
p. 224.) II—ſ;22
Entire prečmption proof to be taken before officer named in notice.
IV—473; V–361
Prečmption affidavit should be made within the county in which the
land is situated. IW–63
No part of prečmption, may be taken before a notary. III–298.
Testimony in prečmption may be taken before any officer competent
to administer oaths. III–429
Bequired by section 2262, Revised Statutes, must be made before a
probate judge in Dakota acting as clerk, when at the county seat
where the court is holden. II–224
172 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
III. PLACE OF TAKING; OFFICER—Continued.
Required by section 2262, Revised Statutes, must be made before the
register or receiver, but if made before a clerk may be cured by a
supplemental affidavit. II–622
(See subtitle No. II.)
IV. WITNESSES.
Witnesses must be disinterested. I–96
Witnesses must testify from their personal knowledge. I–96
Careful examination of witnesses required. V-220
IXnowledge of witnesses should be tested by cross-examination.
IV-253, 260
On offer of, special agent may be present and cross-examine the Wit-
IlêSSGS. WI–25.5
Local officers may use their personal knowledge as the basis for cross-
examining witnesses. IV—260
Can not be considered without the testimony of at least two witnesses
as to the settler's qualifications and compliance with law. VII-88
Based on evidence of witnesses not named in the notice is invalid.
- v–348, 609
In taking, the officer should test the witness, means of knowledge.
III–133
Dependence upon attorney for witnesses suggests collusion. I–96
Element of weakness in that the witnesses do not live near the land.
W–449; VIII–651
Irregularity in, caused by the substitution of a witness, may be cured
by new publication, giving the names of the parties who did tes.
tify. Ix–266,646
Defect in, caused by the substitution of a witness, may be cured by
republication, and the proof accepted as made in the absence of
protest. VIII–475
V. TRANSFEREE.
Right to submit supplemental, accorded to a transferee in the ab-
sence of adverse claims. VIII–641
Where irregularly made supplementary proof may be submitted af.
ter republication by a transferee, showing that the entryman com-
plied with the law during the period covered by the final proof,
and the facts as to the transfer. VIII–18
Irregularly submitted by the entryman (now deceased) may be ac-
cepted in the absence of protest, on new publication by the trans-
feree. VII-391
May be accepted in the absence of protest on new publication by the
transferee, where the first was not sufficient, and the whereabouts
of the entryman can not be ascertained. VII–197
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 173
V. TRANSFEREE–Continued.
Where the entryman fails or refuses to submit new proof, as required,
his transferee may be permitted to show that the claimant had in
fact complied with the law prior to transfer. VII–367
Mortgagee permitted to furnish supplementary proof as to the entry-
man's compliance with law prior to submission of, where the entry-
man failed to appeal from the rejection of. WI–776
Transferee may furnish evidence showing that on the day fixed for
the submission of proof no protest or objection was made. VII–445
Mortgagee may submit evidence after due notice, showing that the
proof was intended for land other than that included within the
final certificate. * VI–834
Turther publication of notice by transferee permitted, where the land,
through no fault of the entryman, was misdescribed, and the
whereabouts of Said entryman can not be ascertained. WI–770
VI. CONTINUANCE.
Submission of, may be adjourned by local officers, on account of press
of business, to a day certain. VI—512
Continuance of proceedings should be to a day certain.
v1–806; VII–539
Continuance of proceedings to a day certain renders such proceed-
ings continuous, and the final certificate issued at the close thereof
will relate back to the beginning. VII–418
VII. PROTEST.
A protest serves to call attention to irregularities in, and for such
purpose a regular contest is not necessary. IX—495.
On protest against the local officers may order a hearing. I–86, 448;
VII–483
If no protest is found in the record it will be presumed that none was
filed. VIII-202; Ix–339
Duty of clerk of court in taking final proof under protest. III–479
A protestant against final proof may appear at the time and place
mentioned in the notice, and make his objection by cross examining
the applicant and his witnesses, or by introducing counter-proof,
or by both. II–596
Protestant against, not required, in the absence of an order under
Rule 35 of Practice, to submit his testimony at time and place set
for taking the proof. IX—273
A hearing ordered on protest against final proof does not initiate a
contest as contemplated by act of June 3, 1878, nor require publica-
tion of notice thereunder. II–580
VIII. ADVERSE CLAIM.
During the pendency of contest proceedings, proof should not be
submitted. Ix–279, 299, 322
174 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
VIII. ADVERSE CLAIM—Continued.
Should not be submitted while questions involving the right to make
the same are pending on appeal. IV–265, 394
Should not be received or considered while the land is covered by a
pending indemnity selection. VII–149
When adverse claimant enters protest bearing should be ordered at
such time and place as may be fixed by the local office. IX—273
Adverse claimants must appear on notice of. W–210
On Submission of, after due notice, the failure of a railroad company
to assert its claim is conclusive. I–361, 475
Failure of a railroad company, claiming under indemnity withdrawal
prior to Selection, to appear and assert claim is conclusive.
v–407, 586, 658
Failure of a railroad company to appear in response to notice under
the act of March 3, 1879, and assert its right to land within the
granted limits bars the subsequent assertion of such right.
VIII–3S9
Failure of railroad company to respond to notice of intention to sub-
mit, waives its right to deny facts set up in the proof; but if the
record shows that the title passed under the railroad grant, the
award should be to the company notwithstanding its default.
IX-416, 423, 427
Submitted during the pendency of proceedings on appeal is irregular,
but may be considered on final disposition of the adverse claim.
(See 9 L. D., 279 and 299.) IX—57
An adverse claimant who objects to the submission of, before a clerk
of court, is not required to submit his testimony before said officer
in the absence of an order under IRule 35 of Practice. VII–315
On offer of, an adverse claimant can not set up a claim that has been
held invalid in a decision final as between the parties. X-451
Where final proof is not made within the time prescribed, right to
make entry is cut off by an adverse claim. II–593
Additional, showing compliance since submission of, not permissible
in the presence of an adverse claim. WI–760
Where there is an uncanceled adverse claim and the record shows
that applicant for final proof has priority of inception, he must
proceed under act of March 3, 1879; a prior adverse claimant is not
bound to take notice of an application to make final proof. (See 11,
L. D., 449.) II–595
Where final proof, twenty-one months after filing, failed to show sat.
isfactory residence, but otherwise showed good faith, further proof
(in the nature of an amendment) may be offered within the thirty-
three months, notwithstanding an existing homestead entry of rec-
ord. (Overruled, 6 L. D., 623.) II–623
On the rejection of, offered by two prečmptors for the same tract,
without according priority to either, both may be allowed in the
absence of bad faith to submit new proof. WI–424
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 175
VIII. ADVERSE CLAIM—Continued.
A prečmptor, in the presence of an adverse claim, is not protected
by an erroneous Statement in the receipt as to the time within
which he might make final proof. (See 1 L. D., 459.) III–46
Submission of, may be deferred within the statutory period, though
notice of making, has been given and an adverse claimant appeared.
I–446
A prečmptor who offers, in the presence of a valid adverse claim, and
fails to show compliance with the law, must submit to an order of
cancellation. VI—308, 623, 760; VII–483; Ix–55, 501
A prečmptor who submits in the presence of an adverse claim, is
not precluded from making supplemental proof if the adverse claim
fails for want of good faith. IX—81
IX. EQUITABLE ACTION.
If not made within the statutory period, the final entry (homestead)
should be submitted to the board of equitable adjudication.
VII-384; VIII–626; Ix–291
If submitted after the statutory life of the original entry, and found
insufficient, new proof may be made, in the absence of bad faith,
and if found sufficient the entry (homestead) may be sent to the
board of equitable adjudication. VIII–614
When submitted by deserted wife the entry (homestead) may be sent
to the board of equitable adjudication. VI—311
A deserted wife or minor child may make final proof as entryman’s
agent, the entry (homestead) to go to board of equitable adjudica-
tion. II–81
Where made by an administrator, and the final affidavit is executed
outside of the land district by the heir, who was aged and infirm,
the entry (homestead) may be submitted to the board of equitable
adjudication. VII–18
If not made within statutory period the entry (prečmption) should
be submitted for equitable action. VIII-355
If not submitted within statutory period, entry (desert) may be
equitably confirmed, where the failure is due to ignorance, acci-
ov, no is +olz o. Tv- A QſN 617 4221
Al as , , 4-
viv 11 u, v 1. 111 is tº ev. 1A-zov 9 V a. s. 3 vs ---
If not made within the statutory period the entry (desert) may be
equitably confirmed, where the failure is due to obstacles that could
not be overcome. v1–548, 801; VII–169; VIII–432
May be accepted and entry (desert) sent to the board of equitable
adjudication, in the absence of adverse claim, where reclamation
is not effected within the statutory period, and the delay is satis-
factorily explained. VII–79
Where submitted after the statutory period and found insufficient
new proof may be made, and if found sufficient the entry (desert)
referred to the board of equitable adjudication. VIII–573
176 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
IX. EQUITABLE ACTION.—Continued.
Failure of the claimant to make his own proof on the day fixed may
be cured by action of the board of equitable adjudication where his
witnesses appeared and testified at the time and place designated.
VIII–202
Where the testimony and final affidavit of the claimant were taken
prior to the day fixed in the notice, on filing new final affidavit the
entry may go to the board of equitable adjudication. VII–139
Pailure to submit on the day advertised may be cured by action of
the board of equitable adjudication. VIII–415
When not submitted on day advertised, and the register certifies
that no protestant appeared on the day fixed, the entry may be sent
to the board of equitable adjudication. WI–745
Where not submitted, through circumstances beyond the claimant's
control, on the day advertised, and no adverse claim exists, the
entry may be sent to the board of equitable adjudication.
VI–460, 782
Where the testimony of the witnesses, through mistake, was submit.
ted on the day previous to that designated, but no protestant
appeared, the entry may go to the board of equitable adjudication.
WI-695
Failure to submit on the day designated having been once satisfac-
torily explained, and the proof accepted without protest, the entry
may go to the board of equitable adjudication. VI—629
Where the failure to submit, on the day advertised, was the fault of
the local office, and further publication by the claimant is not pos-
sible, the entry may be sent to the board of equitable adjudication.
WI–806
When submitted after the day fixed and good faith is manifest, the
entry may be referred to the board of equitable adjudication, in the
absence of protest or adverse claim. VII–326, 445
May be referred to the board of equitable adjudication where wit.
nesses' testimony was not taken on the day or before the officer
named, but the claimant’s evidence was submitted according to the
notice. VII–482
May be accepted, and the entry referred to the board of equitable
adjudication, where the proof was not made on the day advertised,
but new publication was thereafter made. VII–465
When not made on the day advertised, but was accepted by the
local office prior to the regulations of February 19, 1887, the entry
may be equitably confirmed. Ix-297, 339, 629.
Defect in, caused by failure to submit on the day advertised, must
be cured by equitable action, in the absence of evidence showing
that the case is within the confirmatory provisions of the act of
March 2, 1889. X–596
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 177
IX. EQUITABLE ACTION.—Continued.
Section 9 of the final proof rules should be construed so as to not
require entries to be sent to the board of equitable adjudication, if
the proof was made before the promulgation of the circular of Feb-
ruary 19, 1887, and falls within the protection of the act of March
2, 1889. IX—284
If made within ten days of the date advertised, the entry need not,
under the act of March 2, 1889, be sent to the board of equitable
adjudication, if the delay was unavoidable. IX–283
Where the testimony of the witnesses was taken on a day, and before
an officer not named in the notice, but was submitted, with the tes-
timony of the claimant, at the proper time and before the officer
designated, the entry may be equitably confirmed. X-296
When taken before an officer not authorized to act in such proceed-
ings the entry may be equitably confirmed, if otherwise regular.
X-183
When taken at the time and place designated, but not before the
officer named in the notice, the entry may be sent to the board of
equitable adjudication. VIII–406, 411, 519
An entry allowed on proof taken before an officer not authorized to
act in such capacity, may be referred to the board of equitable
adjudication, in the absence of other objection thereto. VIII–483
Entry may be referred to the board of equitable adjudication where
the claimant's evidence was not submitted before the officer named,
but the testimony of the witnesses was taken in accordance with
the notice. WII–4S5
That the officer named in the notice was unauthorized to take, will
not prevent equitable confirmation of the entry where the proof
was made at the time and place designated but not before said
Officer. VIII–411
Entry submitted to the board of equitable adjudication, where non-
mineral and new final affidavit were executed outside of the terri-
tory, and negligence is not attributable to the claimant in making
final proof. WI-710
Irregularly submitted by the entryman (now deceased) may be ac-
cepted, in the absence of protest, on new publication by the
assignee, and the entry referred to the board of equitable adjudi-
cation. VII–273
May be accepted and entry referred to the board of equitable adjudi-
cation, in the absence of protest, where the day fixed for its sub-
mission was a legal holiday, and proof was made the day following.
WII–28S
Where, through mistake, Sunday was designated for the submission
of, and it was made the day previous, the entry may be referred to
the board of equitable adjudication. WII—531
10464—12
178 - DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
IX. EQUITABLE ACTION.—Continued.
Where part of the land was misdescribed in the notice and testi-
mony, the entry may be referred to the board of equitable adjudi-
cation, after new publication by the transferee. VII–462
Where notice of a decision holding an entry for cancellation for fail.
ure to submit within the statutory period is not given, an oppor-
tunity for the submission of such proof may be allowed, and the
entry equitably confirmed if within the rule. X—548
X. COMMUTATION.
Sufficiency of, must be determined by the local officers before trans-
mittal to the General Land Office. V–61()
Must be such as is required under the prečmption law, and affirma-
tively show due compliance with all requirements.
IV-347; V–676; VIII–651
Sufficient on commutation, if it shows settlement and cultivation sat.
isfactory under the prečmption law, though residence was not es-
tablished within six months after entry. (See VIII–566.) I–39
Though not sufficient in the matter of residence to warrant patent
under section 2291, R. S., may be accepted as authorizing commu-
tation. (Overruled, 9 L. D., 150.) VIII–45
If that made under section 2291, R. S., shows failure to comply with
law, the claimant will be barred from submitting commutation.
IX—150
On acceptance of, by the Department, the original entry may, at the
option of the claimant, remain intact or be commuted on the evi-
dence submitted. WI-324
The unexplained fact that the claimant could not get the money to
make payment does not excuse failure to submit proof on the day
advertised, and new proof will be required. VII–367
Submitted prior to payment accepted in View of existing practice and
other satisfactory reasons shown. WI–107
When rejected, because irregularly submitted, with leave to submit
new, the new proof, though covering the same period as the first,
if taken after due notice, may be accepted nunc pro tune. VII—231
If found insufficient, new proof may be submitted within the life of
the original entry, if bad faith is not apparent.
IV—557; V-608; VI-8; VII–87; VIII–84, 651
In the absence of fraud or concealment Supplemental, may be sub-
mitted in case of a commuted entry allowed on insufficient proof.
X—492
Additional, as to residence allowed in case of commutation. III–462
Right to submit new, not defeated by the appearance of a protestant
who fails to show an adverse right. WI–763
In commutation, must be explicit as to residence. IV—478
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 179
X, COMMUTATION.—Continued.
Fact of commutation does not in all cases defeat the plea of poverty
when offered as an excuse for absences and want of improvements.
VI—170
Claim of good faith nullified by willful suppression of facts, and com-
mutation within the shortest possible period, while alleging pow-
erty. WI-265
Submission of, makes against the good faith of a claimant who pleads
poverty as an excuse for absences from the land. VIII–651
Made within the shortest period permissible invites special scrutiny.
Iv–347; VIII–651
Offering within shortest possible period not in itself a suspicious cir-
Cumstance. V–207
Of deceased entryman approved though the residence was not fully
satisfactory. V—215
Good faith indicated by the character of improvements. VII-232
The degree and condition in life of the entryman may be taken into
consideration in determining whether the improvements show good
faith. - v1-310; VIII–639
The words “cultivation” and “improvement” used synonymously by
the Department in considering cash entries. WI–420
As to cultivation should show the facts. IV-253
In commutation entry cultivation must be proved. II–72
Must show cultivation or some definite act looking thereto. VI-420
Breaking accepted as proof of cultivation. VIII–517, 551, 612
Breaking may be accepted as proof of cultivation under a commuted
entry where settlement is made too late in the season for a crop.
X—526
Evidence showing improvements to secure pasturage accepted in lieu
of the usual proof of cultivation, where the land appears better
adapted to such use than to the cultivation of crops that require
tillage. VII–200
XI. DFSERT LAND.
Circular regulations of June 27, 1887. W-70S
The regulations of June 27, 1887 are not retroactive. IX 399
Proceedings begun before the circular of June 27, 1887, was received
at the local office may be completed under the previous regulations.
IX—399
Publication of notice not insisted upon where the original entry was
made prior to August 1, 1887 (circular of December 3, 1889).
IX—672
Sufficient under entries made before the circular regulations of June
27, 1887, if in conformity with the regulations existing at the time
the initial entry was made. IX—259
The proprietorship of sufficient water to insure permanent irrigation
must be shown. IV–51; V-120, 151
180 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
XI. DESERT LAND–Continued.
Must show the character of the water supply and means provided
for its distribution, with full information as to the number and
length of all ditches on each legal subdivision. IX-137
Actual irrigation of the land is the essential requisite. VIII–573
The actual irrigation of the whole tract must appear. v–120, 151
Not required to show irrigation of rocky and hilly portion of the land.
V–481
Must show what proportion of each legal subdivision has been irri-
gated. VII–253
The fact of permanent reclamation warrants the acceptance of peri-
odic flooding, effected by means of a dam, as a proper mode of irri.
gation. IX—419
Reclamation may be established without showing crops. V-120, 151
Satisfactory when sufficient water is shown to have been conveyed
upon the land. III–385
Proof of crops raised treated as supplementing proof of irrigation.
V–151
Must show that the crop raised is the result of reclamation. IV—51
If crops are not shown, other evidence of a satisfactory character to
establish the fact of reclamation must be furnished. VIII–113
The testimony should show that the witnesses have personal know-
ledge that each subdivision of the land is irrigated. X–59S
Must show compliance with the law in form and spirit. IV—51
Proof showing acts of reclamation after the rejection of the original
proof is new, and not supplemental, and should not be submitted
without due publication. VII–167
Which does not show reclamation can not be accepted, although good
faith may appear. VII–167
Commissioner may require additional proof. VII–337
Of claimant not made by attorney in fact. W–19
Allowed after the expiration of the statutory period. IV—261
The Department can not extend the time within which to submit.
III–8; VIII–432; IX—617, 632
In the absence of adverse claim may be received though not made
within the statutory period. WI–24
On failure to submit, within the statutory period, the entryman should
be allowed ninety days within which to show cause why his entry
should not be canceled. IX—631
Submitted after expiration of the statutory period, should be accom-
panied by an explicit explanation. IX—617
(See subtitle No. IX.)
XII. HOMESTEAD.
The Department has no authority to extend the statutory period
within which to submit. IX—291; x–400
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 181
XII. HOMESTEAD–Continued.
Entry will be canceled at the expiration of seven years if proof is
not submitted after due notice. & I–112
When final proof is not made within seven years from entry, notice
to show cause why the same should not be canceled will issue.
III–136
Local officers are required to notify claimants in default with their
final proof, giving them thirty days in which to show cause why
their entries should not be canceled. II–89
Allegation of grasshopper ravages as excuse for a failure to offer
final proof within the time required, must be founded on prior
proper notice and absence from the land. II–622
No statutory authority under which an administrator may submit
and perfect claim of deceased homesteader. WI–573
Not made by guardian if ward has reached majority. IV—331; VII–34
When orphan child of soldier comes to age before time of making,
the final affidavit must be made by the beneficiary. II–101
When made by guardian of minor child of deceased soldier, final cer.
tificate and receipt and patent should issue to “A. B., orphan child
of C. D., deceased.” II–99
When made for the heirs the final affidavit should be made by one of
the heirs. I—103
New final affidavit required in case of infant children succeeding to
the right to make. I–89
Deserted wife, or minor child, may submit. II–81; VI—311
Under the acts of March 3 and July 1, 1879, as amended May 6, 1886.
V—125
If made on original entry, no further proof is required by the act of
March 2, 1889, under an additional entry of contiguous land. x–681
Should be explicit in all details necessary to establish the fact of res-
idence in good faith. X–30
New, may be made, where that submitted is found insufficient, but
good faith is apparent. X—400
Proof under section 2291, Revised Statutes, may be made where
commutation proof has been rejected with right to submit new
proof. VIII–547
Supplementary proof explanatory of absences permitted. WI–809
(As to proof of non-alienation, see subtitle No. I.) -
XIII. OSAGE.
The proof required to establish the fact of an actual settlement un-
der the act of May 28, 1880, is no less in degree than the proof
required under the prečmption law. X—36
Failure to submit within six months after Osage filing renders the
right of entry thereunder subject to intervening adverse claims.
WI-111; VII–154, 277, 322, 457
182 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
XIII. OSAGE–Continued.
Failure to submit proof within six months after Osage filing renders
the land subject to intervening claims, and such a claim will not be
lessened by the fact that the settlement therein was made prior to
the expiration of the period accorded the first claimant to make
proof. | VII–322
Failure to submit within six months after Osage filing does not ren-
der the claim subject to the adverse right of a subsequent settler.
Rogers v. Lukens overruled. VIII–11()
Failure to submit, and make payment within six months after Osage
filing renders the claim thereunder subject to any valid interven-
ing right. Epley v. Trick overruled. IX—353
Failure to submit proof and make payment within six months from
Osage filing will not defeat the right of purchase in the absence of
an intervening adverse claim. VII–277
Must be submitted under amended Osage filing within six months
from the allowance of the amendment. X—624
As between two settlers on Osage land who were both in default in
the matter of submitting, the preference must be accorded to the
one who was first in settlement and making proof. VII–30S
XIV. PREEMPTION. (See subtitles Nos. II and VIII.)
One who swears falsely in the premises forfeits the money paid for
the land, and also all right and title to the land itself. II–598
Time for proof and payment on unoffered land fixed by the acts of
July 14, 1870, and March 3, 1871. 1–379; V-530, 553; VII–13
Act of May 9, 1872, extended time for, in Minnesota one year. I-380
Is submitted in time if notice thereof is given within the statutory
period. I–461
Statutory period for the submission of, can not be extended by the
Department. IX—340
Failure to submit, and make payment for offered land within twelve
months from settlement, renders the land subject to the entry of
any other purchaser. IX—377
And payment for offered land may be accepted, though made more
than one year after settlement. W–473
Failure to make proof and payment before public offering defeats the
right of prečmption in the presence of an adverse claim. III–265
The statutory period within which it should be made for unoffered
land begins to run from the expiration of the three months after
settlement. VIII–393, 417
Failure to submit and make payment within thirty months after the
expiration of the period fixed for filing declaratory statement, sub-
jects the claim to the intervening right of another. X–216
Failure to make proof and payment within the statutory period en-
tails a forfeiture of rights in the presence of an adverse claim.
III–93, 370,379,499
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 183
XIV. PREEMPTION.—Continued.
No penalty, in the absence of intervening settlement, for failure to
make proof and payment for unoffered land within the statutory
period. W–440
An erroneous statement in the prečmption certificate that the land is
“unoffered,” when in fact “offered,” will not protect the claimant,
in the presence of an adverse claim, if he fails to make proof in
twelve months. III–46. (See I-459)
Failure to submit and make payment within the statutory period will
not defeat the right of entry in the absence of an adverse claim.
I-355, 401, 487; VIII–417
Should not be submitted until after the expiration of three months
from the filing of the township plat. WI–633
A period should be fixed for submitting supplemental proof where
the statutory life of the filing has expired. WII–71
Reasonable time for transmission allowed when final affidavit is exe-
cuted before clerk of court. I–483
Final affidavit not required to bear even date with entry when made
before clerk of court. I–482
In making substituted, the prečmptor may execute the necessary
affidavits outside of the land district in which the land is situated.
WI–794
Delay in the execution of the final affidavit and making payment ex-
cused, where caused by the advice of the local office. X-421
On behalf of minors, sole heirs of a deceased prečmptor, may be sub-
mitted by the guardian if by the laws of the State he is charged
with the care of the minor’s estate. X–551
Heirs may submit, though the prečmptor died without executing the
affidavit required in section 2262, Revised Statutes. X-551
On the death of the prečmptor, should be made for the benefit of the
heirs of the deceased, and not for one of said heirs claiming as sole
legatee. WI–S2.3
Proof and payment must be made at the same time. III–188,299;
v–220, 221
Failure to make payment at time of, will not defeat an entry made
under regulations which recognized such a practice. IX—615
After due notice of such intention, a filing may be transmuted and
proof offered thereon the same day. I–400; III–286; VI-379
On offer to make, the prečmptor must be prepared to defend against
all charges and claims, with the right to continuance if necessary.
III–141
Difference between proof that is fraudulent or merely defective noted.
III–411
Rejection of final proof does not always call for cancellation of filing.
III–451
184 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
XIV. PREEMPTION.—Continued.
Further proof may be submitted where that accepted by the local
office does not clearly show compliance with law and bad faith does
not appear. II–789; III–107, 454; V1–122, 549
After, and hearing had thereon, further time to comply with the law
not allowed. IV—322
That the family of the prečmptor does not live upon the land does
not necessarily impeach his good faith. III–213
Submission of, a few days prior to the expiration of the six months'
requisite residence does not in itself call for cancellation, if good
faith is otherwise apparent. X—260
The submission of, a few days prior to the expiration of the requisite
six months' residence does not in the absence of protest call for
new proof where the land is held by a subsequent purchaser with-
out notice. VIII–638
For lands within former indemnity withdrawal may be accepted,
though offered within less than six months after revocation of the
withdrawal, where the claimant has improved and resided upon the
land prior to such revocation. X-4.54
Not invalidated by intention to mortgage the land, on receipt of final
certificate, to secure the purchase money. W-701
Submission of, within the shortest period possible, not in itself suffi.
cient to impeach the good faith of the prečmptor. X–119
The degree and condition in life of the entryman may be considered
in determining whether he has shown good faith. VIII–645
Inferior character of improvements not evidence of bad faith, if com-
mensurate with claimant's means. VIII–353, 639
That the improvements are inconsiderable in value does not warrant
rejection of, if otherwise satisfactory. X-340, 468
Showing in the matter of improvements satisfactory if good faith is
made apparent the eby. IX-1
Proof of grazing accepted in lieu of cultivation on proper showing.
IV—502; VII–455
Where proof of grazing is tendered in lieu of cultivation the extent
of such use should be shown. VII–45.5
If land is fit only for grazing, that fact should be shown in explana-
tion of such use of the land in lieu of cultivation. VII–294
Should not be rejected for failure to show cultivation if the inhabi-
tancy and improvements are sufficient. X–337
In the matter of cultivation, the time of year in which residence was
established may be considered where no crop was raised. VII-451
Breaking accepted as proof of cultivation, where in other respects
due compliance with law is shown, and the failure to raise a crop
is explained. IX—432
Proof as to cultivation does not necessarily require a showing that
a crop has been raised. WII–439
(As to proof of non alienation, see subtitle No. I.)
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 185
XV. TIMBER CULTURE. (See circular regulations, I-638; VI-280).
The general circular of March 1, 1884, continues in force the provi-
Sions of the circular of 1882. V-234
Publication of notice not insisted upon where the original entry was
made prior to September 15, 1887. (Circular of December 3, 1889.)
Ix–672; x–501
Should be adjudicated under the regulations in force when submit-
ted. IX—189
Entry made under act of 1874 may be proved up under act of 1878.
I-123
Proof under any of the acts must be specific. V—233
Final certificate, issued on timber-culture proof prematurely made,
should not be canceled, but suspended, pending further compli-
ance with law. WII–231
The period of cultivation should be computed under the rule in force
at the time the entry was made. IX–86
The time consumed in preparing the land and planting the trees is
computed as part of the required eight years of cultivation and pro-
tection. II–309
At the expiration of the eight years from date of entry one-half of the
trees (3,875) must have been growing for five years, and the re-
maining half for four years. II–310, 328; III–260, 329
Premature, if submitted prior to eight years' cultivation. WII–231
Under entries made prior to the circular of June 27, 1887, the time
allowed for the preparation of the land and planting the trees may
be treated as forming part of the requisite eight years of cultiva-
tion. Ix–86, 284, 624; x–409, 501
Under entries made since the circular of June 27, 1887, the period of
cultivation must be computed from the time when the full acreage
is planted. Ix—S6, 284
Showing the period of cultivation required by existing regulations,
and accepted by the local office, should not be rejected under later
regulations that call for a longer period of cultivation. IX—189
Departmental instructions of July 16, 1889, with respect to the rule
to be observed in computing the period of cultivation, did not affect
cases already adjudicated. X–93
It is the duty of the Land Department to see that the trees are of
such size as to render their continued growth without further cul-
tivation or protection reasonably certain. II-310
Rejected where it showed the trees averaged but 2% inches in diam-
eter and 10 feet in height. ' III–299
No standard as to size of trees, at time of proof, to be adopted.
III–329; VIII–191
When the trees are not of a satisfactory growth at the end of eight
years, without fault of the entryman, the law allows him five years
additional time. II–309, 328
186 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
Florida. (See States and Territories; Swamp Land.)
Fraud. (See Contest, subtitle II.)
Must be clearly established to warrant the cancellation of an entry.
tº I-439; W1–225
Actual fraud shown on trial, though not charged, will justify cancel.
lation. III–4(;2
Charge of, will not be disregarded. III–57; V–180
For which judgment will be set aside must be extrinsic to the matter
at issue. IV—568
A claimant can not do indirectly that which the law directly forbids.
III–57
Charge of, does not change the established rules of evidence. IV-64
The government will not knowingly further a fraudulent design.
Y. IV-158, 308
Presumption of, not justified by sale made shortly after entry.
IV-135
Effect of, in the procurement of final adjudication renders the judg-
ment void upon discovery before the proper tribunal. W–31
Whilst it is competent for the Land Department to take cognizance
of fraud whenever it appears to affect the title to public land, it is
not its province to inquire into it when it merely affects the private
rights of the parties. II–616, 621
Graduation Entry. (See Entry, subtitle No. VII; Private Entry.)
Guardian. (See Final Proof, subtitle No. XII.)
Hearing. (See Practice.)
Homestead. (See Alienation ; Entry; Final Proof; Mineral Land ;
Residence ; Settlement.)
I. GENERALLY.
II. BY WHOM.
III. WIDow ; HEIRs; DEVISEE.
IV. I) ESERTED WIFE.
V. INDIAN.
VI. ADDITIONAL.
VII. ADJOINING FARM.
VIII. SOLDIERS’.
IX. SOLDIERS’ ADDITIONAL.
X. COMMUTATION.
XI. CULTIVATION.
XII. ACT OF MAY 14, 1880.
XIII. ACT OF JUNE 15, 1880.
XIV. ACT of MARCH 2, 1889.
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 187
I. GENERALLY.
Law must be construed as a whole. IV-400, 581
The right exhausted with one entry. III–57; V-124, 133
Where an entry is relinquished because of the ravages of grasshop-
pers, the homestead right is exhausted. II–141
Dnder the original act rights were initiated solely by entry.
I–31; III–131; VI-134
Under the law it is the entry which reserves the land. III–131
Equitable title acquired by residence and cultivation. W–107
Land subject to preemption is subject to. III–230
Right to make entry does not extend to lands reserved by competent
authority. X–513
Can not be made of land occupied in good faith by others. III–362
One who occupies public land for the purpose of “trade and busi-
ness,” prior to the entry thereof, is precluded from taking the same
under the homestead law. VI—332
Entry of land occupied by the entryman, at time of entry, for pur-
poses of “trade and business” is illegal, and the illegality extends
not only to the land covered by the buildings and improvements,
but to the entire entry. (See Soldiers' Additional.) X–649.
If at the date of the original entry the land is not occupied for pur-
poses of “trade and business,” the subsequent use of the land by
others for such purposes will not defeat the right of the claimant.
X-205.
A tract “cornering ” upon another is not “contiguous” thereto within
the meaning of section 2289, Revised Statutes. V-683.
Rights acquired through transmutation relate back to settlement and
filing. IX—32
Entryman may bring action for trespass prior to final proof. III–54
Terms of the law must be complied with though the entry may be of
land requiring irrigation. - W–E97
Entry having been allowed should not be canceled on ea parte alle-
gation of prior adverse settlement right, but a hearing should be
ordered to settle priorities. VI-.766.
Not allowed where the evident purpose was to wrongfully secure the
improvements of another. y—377
Intention to wrong another evidence of bad faith. IV—158
Claim of one that fails in residence will not defeat a prečmptor that
has not filed. W–188
Total failure to comply with the law not excused by poverty. IV–185
The right to submit proof, and receive patent in case of an entry by a
single woman, is not defeated by her marriage and removal from the
land after fulfilling the statutory period of residence. WI–140.
Claimant that alleges residence before required must show the same.
W–440.
188 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
I. GENERA III.Y-Continued.
Not allowed where settlement could only be effected by forcible intru-
Sion. W-377
The “family” of the entryman includes his children, whether legiti-
mate or otherwise, that remain with him and under his care. IX—52
Entry does not authorize general disposition of timber. IV—289; V-389
Not maintained through the occupancy of a tenant. III–362
Right not lost by failure to contest a prima facie valid adverse claim.
VII-385
Entry must be canceled on death of entryman without heirs. III-384
Claim for land chiefly valuable for its timber should be carefully
scrutinized. VIII–526
If the land is subject to, and the applicant is qualified the Only ques-
tion thereafter is compliance with the law. W–197
Claim secured through concessions made a conflicting Settler. W-119
II. BY WHOM. (See subtitles, Nos. III and IV.)
Right to initiate a claim is conferred upon One “who has filed his
declaration of intention” to become a citizen. VIII–289
Applicants, alien born, must accompany affidavits with record proof
that they have declared their intention to become citizens. II–194
Can not be made by a married women. II–112
Married woman, the head of a family, qualified to make. X—527
The entry of a single woman is not affected by her subsequent mar-
riage. VII-470
Entry of single woman not affected by marriage before final proof.
v–196; VI-140
The right to receive patent in case of entry by a single woman is not
abridged by her marriage or removal from the land after fulfilling
the statutory pe; iod of residence. WI–140
By one, in his own right, who has already made final proof, as the
minor orphan child of a deceased soldier. II–100
By a widow, in her own right, whilst continuing to cultivate the
homestead of her deceased husband. II–169
The right of a widow to make entry recognized, though holding land
covered by the entry of her husband on which final proof has not
been made. W–184
By a minor, as head of a family. II–82
By the wife of an insane person, as head of a family, her husband
being civilly dead. II–102
No rights acquired by the purchase of another's improvements when
not followed by settlement and residence. WI-608
Allowed to one who has already made prečmption entry. IV—441
Right of one now in military or naval service to take, dependent
upon his ability to comply with the requirements of the law. I-98
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 189
II. BY WHOM-Continued.
One in military service may take, on showing due compliance with
the law. IV—399
Right of the entryman not affected by the fact that final certificate
had not issued on his prior preemption claim when he made his
entry, it appearing that he was entitled to such certificate at that
time. VII–455; VIII–268
Right can not be accorded to one who is at the same time maintain-
ing a preemption claim for another tract. III–226; IV—26, 462;
V–403; WI–831; VII-215, 225, 444, 447; VIII–96, 200, 461; IX-63
Claim not initiated while holding as a tenant. IV—259
Where husband and wife settled on and improved a tract, and after-
wards the wife made entry of it, under a mistake as to the law,
said entry is canceled, with privilege to the husband, if qualified,
to enter in his own name, and to have his right relate back to date
Of Settlement. II–112
III. WIDOW; HEIRS; DEVISEE.
Entryman can not by will defeat the statutory succession. I–41, 86
Right of widow, heirs, or devisee to make entry. I–64, 86;
II–46, 77; VI-134
Before the rights of heirs are considered, it must be shown that there
is neither widow nor child surviving. II–98
Upon death, the law casts the homestead right on the widow, who
must, however, so indicate her intention of claiming the land that
third persons shall not be prejudiced by her laches. II–138
A minor orphan daughter, surviving, succeeds to her father's entry,
and may also make homestead entry in her own right. II–100
On the death of an entryman leaving adult and minor heirs, the title
inures to the minors, to the exclusion of the adult heirs. X-543
Married women may, as heir of a deceased homesteader, file applica-
tion, submit proof, and receive patent. VIII–286
If the entryman dies before final proof, and his widow also dies, not
having made proof, the right vests in the heir or devisee of the
entryman, and not in the heir or devisee of the widow. X—240
Right acquired by settlement may be perfected by widow, heirs, or
devisee of deceased settler, the same as though based on formal
application to enter. VI–134; VIII–286
A widow, as the legal representative of her deceased husband, may
continue to cultivate his homestead, and at the same time may
make entry in her own name. II–169
The minor daughter (19 years old), continuing in person or by proxy
to cultivate and reside on land entered as a homestead by her
father (who had filed his declaration of intention, but who had not
obtained a certificate of naturalization), may by herself or guardian
make final proof, upon filing evidence that she has taken the oaths
prescribed in section 2168, Revised Statutes. II–100
190 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
III. WIDOW; EIEIRS; DEVISEE-Continued.
Possession by an administrator is the possession of the heirs, and the
right of possession rests in the administrator as such WI–672
There is no authority for an executor to consummate the inchoate
claim of a deceased homesteader. IX—599
An administrator is not authorized under section 2291, Revised
Statutes, to consummate the claim of a deceased homesteader.
IX—268
Where entryman (prior to act June 15, 1880) devised the land to his
daughter, afterwards resided on it as head of a family, his widow,
who deserted him prior to the entry, is barred. II–82
Authorized sale under section 2292, Revised Statutes, vests full title
in purchaser, who, in order to obtain patent, must pay office fees
only. II–75
The devisee of a single man, who made formal application before his
death, has the right of entry. II–85
A devisee is entitled to the same privileges that would descend to
the heirs. I–47
Devise of, must be of the land and not of the proceeds from the sale
thereof. I-64
Heirs of a deceased homesteader required to show cultivation and
improvement until the expiration of the statutory period. VII–309
Widow or heir is not required to reside on the land. II–74
Heirs of deceased entryman must show cultivation for the statutory
period. I–636
Widow and heirs required to cultivate but not to reside on claim.
IV—433
Where the death of the homesteader is disclosed by the record, the
patent should issue in the name of the heirs generally. IX—401
IV. DESERTED WIFE.
A “deserted wife” is qualified, as the “head of a family” to make
homestead entry in her own right. I-59; IX—186
A deserted wife can assert no right of entry based upon the cauceled
entry of her husband, but is allowed to enter in her own right.
III–187
In determining the right of a married woman, as a “ deserted wife,”
to make entry, the fact of “desertion ” is not necessarily disproved
by the offer, on the part of the husband, of small sums for the
nominal support of the family, and the refusal of such money by
the wife. . IX—186
Deserted wife as the head of a family entitled to commute. I–59
Additional entry in railroad limits by a deserted wife is illegal.
II–777
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 191
IV. DESERTED WIFE—Continued.
Rules to be obscrved in cases of desertion :
1. If wife maintains her residence, no one but her shall be heard to
allege desertion, in proof of change of residence or abandonment,
for seven years after entry.
2. If she, within said seven years, proves desertion, she may enter
the land in her own name, if the head of a family, or if she has the
right to acquire real property as a feme sole.
3. If she does not make such entry she may make final proof in his
name, as his agent, with her own affidavit to non-alienation; the
entry to be submitted to the Board of Equitable Adjudication.
4. She may, as his agent, commute the entry or purchase under Sec-
tion 2, act of June 15, 1880, and new entry shall be referred to
Board of Equitable Adjudication.
5. Where entryman's wife is deceased, the foregoing rules shall ap-
ply to his child, not twenty-one, who is head of a family. II–81
A deserted wife or minor child may commute the entry of the hus-
band or father only as an agent; entry to be referred to Board of
Equitable Adjudication. II–81
A deserted wife or child may not make final homestead proof, or com-
mute, or purchase under act June 15, 1880, or obtain patent, in
her or his own right, by virtue of the husband's or father's entry.
II–78
V. INDIAN.
Right conferred upon Indians by act of March 3, 1875. I–491
Settlement rights acquired prior to January 1, 1874, recognized by
the act of March 3, 1875. # I–90
Circular instructions as to proceedings to be observed in case of In-
dian applying to make, under act of July 4, 1884. III–91
Rights of Indians controlled by specific legislation. VIII–57
Right of, shown by agent's certificate. IV-143
Extent of compliance with the general law required. LV-143
Certain suspended Michigan, entries to be examined after due notice.
IW–143
The act of January 18, 1881, for the relief of the Winnebago Indians,
extended the time within which homesteads, taken under the act of
March 3, 1875, could be entered and completed, for a period long
enough at least to enable the claimants to use to advantage the
money appropriated in making entries, erecting dwellings, and cul-
tivating and improving the lands so entered and selected; such
selections and entries (in Wisconsin) are not at present subject to
Contest. . II–191
Withdrawal of land for the benefit of Indian claimants under the
homestead law precludes other disposition of the land. X-144
192 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
WI, ADDITIONAL. See Subtitle No. XIV.
Additional entry under the acts of 1879, as amended May 6, 1886.
Circular of July 26, 1886. W–128.
Act of March 3, 1879, construed with the second section of act of
May 14, 1880. I–93
Limitations of right to additional, defined. I-29
The right to make additional, extends to all persons entitled by entry
or succession, to make final proof. I–24, 50
Widow of original entryman may make additional, under the act of
March 3, 1879. I–24
A married woman, who, previous to marriage, had made an entry
wherein she was restricted to 80 acres, may make an additional
entry. I–38
The right to make additional entry exhausted when once used, irre
spective of the amount entered. III–509
The entry can only be made by the original entryman, or by one who
has succeeded to his right and by virtue thereof holds the original
homestead claim. II–777
Persons making new or additional entries under acts of March 3 and
July 1, 1879, have seven years wherein to make final proof. If–91
The right to make, under the act of March 3, 1879, is limited to those
who had taken 80 acres and remained in possession thereof, residing
upon and cultivating the same at the date of the passage of said
act. WI-575
Eelinquishment of original accepted and new entry allowed pending
contest against the original for abandonment. I–93
Under the act of March 3, 1879, limited to original entries on even
sections, made before said act, and where the entry was restricted
to 80 acres. WIII–42S
Under the act of March 3, 1879, only where the applicant was legally
restricted to 80 acres, and the land applied for is subject to entry.
IX—402
Right to make additional, not lost by the purchase of original under
the act of June 15, 1880. I–29
Additional can not be made if the original has been canceled. I–92
Land covered by original and additional entries regarded as a com-
pact body. 1–62, 69
The law subserved if original and additional, are together used as a
home. I–62
Cultivation of land taken as additional, not required. I–62
Subsequent to act of March 3, 1879, entries were not restricted to 80
a CI’OS. II–30
Cancellation of original, does not work the forfeiture of an additional,
based thereon so as to relieve the land from the appropriation of
the latter. WI–442
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 193
VI. ADDITIONAL–Continued.
Where application for 80 acres was made in November, 1878, but,
owing to a prior entry, entry was not made until June, 1879, entry
for an additional 80 acres is allowed. II–30
Claimant may take land embraced in his former timber-culture entry
as additional, if he is the first legal applicant after relinquishment.
I—125
May be embraced within commutation entry. I–100
The act of March 3, 1879, requires residence and cultivation for at
least one year. I–100
VII. A.DJOINING FARM. -
The right to make, does not relate back to the date of settlement
under the original entry. V-172
The right to make, is not enlarged or modified by the act of May 14,
1880. V-172
Entry is a settlement claim, that will defeat the right of a pre-emptor
who has failed to file within the statutory period. X-485
Not allowed to one that has had the benefit of the general law. V-124
Owner of an undivided portion of a tract (less than 160 acres) may
make adjoining farm entry. I–38
An undivided interest in the original does not constitute such owner-
ship as will afford a legal basis for. IX—344
Entry can not be made by one owning and residing on 160 acres who
has given a bond for a deed of the half of it, conditioned upon pay-
ment for the land in three years. II–96
Under section 2289, Revised Statutes, may be based upon the equita-
ble ownership of an adjacent tract, and residence upon said tract
for the period of five years after such entry warrants the submis-
sion of final proof. X-100
A deed executed by a widow, purporting to convey a specific portion
of a “probate homestead,” does not, under the laws of California,
if there are minors, convey such an estate as will sustain an adjoin-
jng farm entry. IX-344
Adjoining farm, allowed to purchaser of original farm and before .
patent therefor. I–61
Right of, under section 2289, Revised Statutes, requires residence on
the original farm. II–38; x–579
Residence on the original farm prior to entry can not be computed as
forming part of the requisite statutory period. I-68; V–172; x–488
Credit for residence prior to entry accorded under the act of May 14,
1880. - VII–33
Adjoining farm requires five years' residence except when there may
be credit for military service. I–69
Validity of, not affected by the entryman's acquiring title to other
adjacent lands prior to final proof. X-100
10464—13
194 - DIGEST OF LAND I) ECISIONS.
VII. A DJOINING FARM-Continued.
The right to make, not modified by the act of May it, 1880. V-172
Original entry treated as adjoining farm, to save the rights of the
entry man. º I–71
VIII. SOLDIERS.
Soldier's declaratory statement, circular of December 15, 1882, with
blank forms. I–648
The rule as to settlement, improvement, and entry of soldier's home-
stead changed by circular instructions December 15, 1882. III–301
Circular requirements of December 15, 1882, concerning soldier's
declaratory statement, discussed. W-133
Filing declaratory statement will not be held to exhaust the home-
stead right in case of entry made prior to the circular of December
15, 1882. VIII–547
The oath of an agent (to non-interest and non-agreement for sale)
required by circular December 15, 1882, must accompany filing.
II—214
The right of the entryman dates from filing declaratory statement.
1–48; x–622
The right of a soldier relates back to his filing, if the entry is regular,
and the right to an additional entry goes there with. I–48
Declaratory filing is not an appropriation of the land. I–80
Declaratory statement may be filed by an agent, but such agent can
not lawfully appoint a sub-agent, unless by the prior or subsequent
consent of his principal. II–215
Fraudulent acts and inducements of certain agents. I–79
Soldier’s declaratory statement filed by an agent and accepted by the
local office will protect the homesteader, though the agent may not
have the power of attorney required by the regulations. VII–202
Declaratory statement filed while the claimant is residing upon and
claiming a different tract under the prečmption law, for which
proof is afterwards made, is illegal, and will not protect the home.
steader as against the intervening settlement of another. VIII–200
A declaratory statement, filed by one who is residing upon and claim-
ing another tract under the prečmption law, which he afterwards
secures under said law, does not reserve the land covered thereby,
as against an intervening right during the subsequent period of
residence on the preemption claim. X—642
Conceding that a soldier's declaratory statement is illegal if filed
when the claimant was residing on another tract under the pre-
émption law, such illegality is cured by subsequent entry under
the filing, after completion of the prečmption claim, and in the
absence of any intervening right. VII–225
Right exhausted by the filing and abandonment of a soldier's de-
claratory statement. IV—562; V-133
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 195
VIII. SOLDIERS–Continued.
Right exhausted by filing soldier's declaratory statement and aban-
donment thereof. There is no distinction in this respect between
a filing made by the soldier and one by his widow or the guardian
of his minor children. VII–136
Right not exhausted by filing a soldier's declaratory statement and
abandoning the tract covered thereby when such filing was ren-
dered inoperative by a prior adverse claim. VII–385
Filing a declaratory statement does not, under the act of March 2,
1889, exhaust the homestead right. Ix–145, 382
To secure the right initiated by a declaratory statement, settlement,
improvement, and entry must follow the filing within six months.
1–79; III–17, 281; v–353; VIII–200
By failure to enter in time the right to file declaratory statement
may be exhausted. III–17
Failure to make entry and settlement within six months after filing
declaratory statement may be excused for climatic reasons, subject
to intervening rights. WI–368
Entry not allowed for other land within life of filing. IV—561
None but the widow, or minor orphan children, can have credit for
the deceased soldier's service, in making an original entry. II–244
The soldier's children take, not as heirs, but as donees, and are sub-
stituted to the soldier's rights where there is no widow, or in the
event of her marriage or death. II–242
Application for minor orphan children must be made on the ordinary
forms, name the children, and be signed by the guardian ; guar-
dian must make the affidavit at the local office, or, if he or one of
the children is residing on the land, before the county clerk.
II–244
The entire term of the soldier's enlistment is to be credited to the
widow, although he was discharged before its expiration because
of the close of the war. II–179
A minor orphan child surviving, and coming of age before time for
making final proof, will not be required to establish residence, but
must improve and cultivate the land. II–101, 244
Under entry made for minor orphan children residence is not required.
X–528
Made for minor heirs requires cultivation and improvement of the
land. X-482
No rights were taken away by the enactment of sections 2304 and
2305, Revised Statutes. IV—399
Entry made through agent by a person in the naval service is within
the provisions of section 2308, Revised Statutes. III–446
Residence, improvement, and cultivation for a period of one year at
least must be shown to authorize patent. º VII–362
Made under soldier's filing may be commuted. IV-39)
196 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
VIII. SOLDIERS–Continued.
Patent not authorized unless it appears that the entryman is a citizen
at date of final proof. * - VII–362
IX. SOLDIERS7 ADDITIONAL.
(See subtitle, No, XIII, and Indian Lands.)
The right does not exist where the period of military service is less
than ninety days. VII–287
Made through an agent in accordance with existing practice, will not
be disturbed. - v–289; v11–165
Soldiers' additional, made through an agent under authorized prac-
tice, a valid appropriation. W–289
Bight of soldier not restricted to contiguous tracts. I–50; III–472
May not be made on a tract withdrawn, for purpose of a sale, under
section 2455, Revised Statutes. II–242
The right to locate additional homestead not to be employed as
against actual settlers. III–315
Unlawful possession of land no bar to location by another. IV—560
Extent of additional entry determined by the difference between the
original entry and 160 acres. W–10
No statutory authority for certifying additional rights. WI–557
Circular of February 13, 1883, discontinuing practice of certification.
* I–654
Status of certificates issued before and after February 13, 1883.
IV—323
“Pending cases” excepted from the regulations of February 13,
1883, were those then pending on application for certification.
VII—353
A certificate of right will not be issued if it appears that the soldier
has parted with his interest therein, and that it will inure to the
benefit of the assignee. Such cases are not protected by the cir-
cular of February 13, 1883. VIII–565
Though the circular of February 13, 1883, which discontinued the
practice of certifying additional rights, reserved from the effect of
such order pending cases and those filed within a specified period,
such exception was not a guaranty that certificates would issue in
said cases, but merely an assurance of their adjudication under the
circular of May 17, 1877. WI–557
A certificate of the right of soldier's additional entry issued to one
who is not entitled is illegal and Void, and an entry made under it
must be canceled. tº. II–237
On cancellation of entry, because the land was not subject thereto,
the certificate of right, issued in accordance with existing regula-
tions, should be returned without alteration. WI–459
The exercise in person of the right, pending application, for the cer-
tification of such right, precludes further action on the application.
VII—356; X—354
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 197
IX. SOLDIERS’ ADDITIONAL–Continued.
Certificate of right will not be issued where the applicant, by a pre-
vious additional entry, exhausted his right under the construction
of the law then prevailing. IX—388
Certificate issued to widow may properly require her to show that
she has not remarried. W–264
The certificate may properly contain the expressed condition, “if
shown to be still living at date of application to enter in his name.”
IV–323
The right to make, is personal and non-assignable. IV—323;
VII–565; VIII–608; Ix–195
The practice in reference to assignments reviewed ; the right is per-
sonal, and the assignment of a certificate will not be recognized ;
a purchaser takes it subject to all defects, and is not an inuocent
purchaser. S II–235
Right is not assignable, but personal, and can be only exercised by
the soldier, or in case of his death, by his widow if unmarried, or
if she be dead or married, by the guardian of his minor children.
X-354
A certificate of right will not be issued for the benefit of one claim-
ing under an assignment of the soldier's interest. X-354
The circular of February 13, 1883, does not authorize the certifica-
tion of the additional right for the benefit of an assignee. X—354
A transferee claiming under the certification of the additional right
has no other or greater right than the entry man. VII–287
A transferee in good faith under an invalid soldier's additional entry
may be given a preferred right to secure title in his own name
under the homestead law if he has not exhausted his rights there-
under. IX—195
The transferee occupies no better position than the entryman if the
entry is invalid for the want of due military service. VII–236
The right to make, does not extend to members of the Missouri Home
Guard. II–235; VII–236; VIII–235
Where certificate has issued improperly to one (in Missouri Home
Guards) without right of additional entry, it is void, and the entry
made under it must be canceled. 11—235
The act of May 15, 1886, authorizing the Secretary of War to issue
certificates of discharge to the members of the Missouri Home
Guards, does not warrant the Department in returning to the prac-
tice of certifying additional rights. WI–557
The act of May 15, 1886, did not confer the right to make, upon mem-
bers of the Missouri Home Guard. VII–236
The circular of May 17, 1877, authorizing the certification of the right
to make additional entry, did not contemplate or authorize the
issue of such certificates to members of the Missouri Home Guards.
WI–557
198 DIGEST OF LANL) DECISIONS.
IX. SOLDIERS ADDITIONAL–Continued.
The right accorded to the minor child of the soldier must be exercised
during his minority. VII–547 ; X-424
ſf the heir of a deceased soldier attain his majority prior to the com-
pletion of his entry he must thereafter act in person, or through a
duly authorized agent, in all matters pertaining to said entry.
X-424
That the certificate of right issued during the minority of the child
would not operate to extend the time within which entry could be
made thereunder. VII–547
Entry for minor heirs allowed to stand though the application did not
contain the names of all the minors. V-222
Right to make additional entry accorded to the minor, though the
soldier's entry had been canceled for abandonment. III–395
Mere suspicion of forgery, from a comparison of signatures on army
l 5 *-* J } y
pay-rolls, without allegations or other proof, may not impair the
claimant’s right. II–240
Allowed when a quantity less than 160 acres was entered before June
22, 1874. I–50
Residence and cultivation required under location where the original
entry was canceled for failure to make final proof. W–1()
The purchaser of the certificate, having made entry, may (in this
case) buy the land under section 2, act of June 15, 1880. II–238
The inadvertent use of the same original entry in a certificate subse-
quently issued does not invalidate a location upon the prior and
prima facie valid certificate. II–239
Without proof as to military service there is no right of entry. IV-32:
Entry of land occupied for purposes of trade and business is illegal,
and the subsequent withdrawal of the protest, filed on behalf of
such occupancy, will not legalize said entry. X–69}
The right to make soldier's additional is not exhausted by a location
which, through no fault of the locator, proved invalid. WI–290
Any certificate of right issued by the General Land Office may be
located by agent. II—240
Is illegal, where the application is nominally by one acting as agent
for the soldier, but in fact for himself, and without any intention
on the part of the soldier to comply with the law. - VIII–60S
Where an attorney through fraud obtained a power to sell the addi-
tional homestead right, the certificate and location made thereunder
will be canceled and a new certificate issued to the soldier. III–39
Where a power of attorney, coupled with an interest, was executed
by the soldier and by his wife, and delivered to A as attorney, and
the soldier died before certification of his right; on a new applica-
tion by the widow, with power of attorney to B as her attorney, it
is held that A is entitled to the possession of the certificate. II–30
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 199
IX. SOLDIERS ADDITIONAL–Continued.
Where a widow applies and dies before issue of the certificate, leaving
children of the soldier, her right is extinguished, not withstanding
any power of attorney she may have given, coupled with an inter-
est or otherwise. II–241
Certificates should be delivered to the agent who filed the claim if he
has properly discharged his duty, though a later power of attor-
ney may have been filed by another, I–34
The Department will not consider questions between attorney and
client arising on application for certification where the claim for
the certificate no longer exists. VII–356
An attorney acting under a power may delegate his authority direct-
ly to a second person, but not indirectly through another. II–31
A second attorney of record can not utilize the proof filed by the first.
- II–31
X. COMMUTATION.
Right of, statutory. WI–311
Right to commute, extends to an entry made under section 2304,
Revised Statutes. IV—399
Is a consummation of the homestead entry. IV-347, 441; VIII–566
Is the consummation of the homestead, and not the exercise of the
preemptive right. Iv–441; VI-288, 407
Right exhausted where title to a portion of the land is consummated
by commutation. VIII–53
By commutation the original is merged into the cash entry, and the
cancellation of the latter involves the cancellation of the former.
IV—237; VI–8, 107; VIII–651
Homestead right lost through failure of commutation entry. V–392
The right of commutation depends upon prior compliance with the
homestead law. If the cash entry fails, the original entry fails
there with. Iv–237; VII–87; Ix–150
Authorized on payment of the purchase price and due showing of
residence, cultivation, and improvement. VII–231
Regulations under the preemption law govern as to residence.
Iv–257, 347
i’roof ill, properly ilieludes residelice. Iv–347, 384
Six months' residence required as an assurance of good faith.
Iv–287, 347, 384
Allowed though residence did not cover six months from entry.
IV—287
Six months’ residence after entry not essential. IV—418
Right of, not defeated by absence covering considerable period, when
followed by a continuous inhabitancy for the time required. WI-324
Right of, not defeated by failure to establish residence within the re-
quired period in the absence of an intervening adverse claim.
I–39; W-675
200 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
X. COMMUTATION.—Continued.
Under the act of May 14, 1880, residence may be computed from date
of settlement. - W–94
Commuted, may be referred to the board of equitable adjudication,
in the absence of protest, where residence is not commenced within
six months. VII–488; VIII–566; x–88
Commuted, allowed since the McKay decision, where residence was
not established within six months from date of original entry, may
be submitted to the board of equitable adjudication without call-
ing for explanation from the entryman. VIII–566
Until all the preliminary acts required by law are performed no
right is acquired as against the government. WI–255
Right of, not defeated where the claimant, through misinformation
received at the local office, submitted ordinary homestead proof.
WI–573
An entryman who has filed his declaration of intention to become a
citizen is qualified to commute. VII–368
A widow by commuting her deceased husband's entry secures the
equitable title to the land. X-209
Right of successful, prior to the actual cancellation of the entry at-
tacked. IV—287
After the submission of Satisfactory proof and tender of payment,
the entryman is under no obligation to remain on the land or show
further compliance with law. X—555
Entryman permitted to commute, in the absence of bad faith, after
the expiration of the statutory life of the original entry and failure
to submit satisfactory proof thereunder. VII–476
XI. CULTIVATION. -
The law insists on the cultivation for five years, even during periods
when his absence is excusable; an entryman earning $1.50 to $1.75
per day at his trade has no excuse for failure to cultivate, II–73
A persisting drought excuses the failure to cultivate. II–149
The occupancy and use of land for lumbering purposes does not con-
stitute the improvement contemplated by the homestead law.
III–63
Commutation of entry will not be allowed in the absence of bona
fide cultivation and residence. III–63
Both residence and cultivation required except in cases of adjoining
farm. III–141
In grazing countries use of the land for that purpose, coupled with
residence, held to be in compliance with homestead laws. III–140
The cultivation required by section 2301, Revised Statutes, is satisfied
by clearing the land for the purpose of planting, when it appears
that sufficient time has not elapsed for further acts in that direc-
tion. III–49
Heirs must cultivate till the five years expire. III–465
“Boxing ” pine trees not cultivation under homestead law. W–389
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 201
XII. ACT OF MAY 14, 1880.
Settlement right of entryman protected by the act of May 14, 1880.
I–83
Right enlarged by the act of May 14, 1880. VI–134; VIII–286
Section 2291 and the act of May 14, 1880, should be construed to-
gether. - VIII–286
Settlement is only protected as against other and later settlers, for
the period of three months. w—624; VI—303; VII–537
The act of May 14, 1880, does not apply to a settlement upon lands
not subject to entry. III–176
The third section of the act of May 14, 1880, is not to be construed
as destroying any vested right theretofore acquired. III–130
General requirements of the law not waived by the act of May 14,
1880. W–172
In the absence of an intervening claim, the rights of a settler under
the act of May 14, 1880, relate back to date of settlement, even
though entry is not made within the statutory period. WI–653
Right was enlarged by the act of May 14, 1880, and protection given
to settlement before survey, so that if a settler dies before survey
the right of entry inures to his devisee. VI–134; VIII–286
The right acquired under the act of May 14, 1880, by a settler who
dies prior to survey may be exercised by his devisee. IX—452
The period within which the right of entry is protected under the
act of May 14, 1880, begins to run from the date when the land is
declared to be open to entry in the published notice of the filing
of the township plat. VIII–207
XIII. ACT OF JUNE 15, 1880.
Right of purchase not personal. - I–50
Land entered prior to said act may be purchased on payment of gov-
ernment price, if free from adverse claims. VIII–75
Purchase should be allowed in the absence of intervening adverse
claims if the land was subject to the original entry. VIII-403
No restriction on purchase under, except those applicable to ordinary
cash entry. W–535
Purchase is not a consummation of the original entry relating back
to the date of such entry, but a private entry operative from the
date thereof. VIII–532
Only land subject to entry may be purchased. IV-171
Intervening vested rights protected as against said act. I–69
Right of purchase extends only to entries made prior to the passage
of the act. - VIII–329
An attempted transfer subsequent to June 15, 1880, can not become
effective, the act having relation to past transactions only. II–176
Right of purchase defined. IV—465
202 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
XIII. ACT OF JUNE 15, 1880–Continued.
Purchase may be made by any person who through entry or by Ope-
ration of law has succeeded to the right to make final proof. I–50, 56
Widow of entry man may purchase. II–83; III–490; V–333
The legal successors entitled to purchase. II—S2
Widow, instead of administrator, may purchase. I-35; III–465
Heirs may acquire title in either of the Several ways prescribed in
the homestead laws, or may purchase under Section 2, act of June
15, 1880, though aliens. II–98
The widow of an entryman may purchase, though the entry has been
canceled for failure to make proof Within the statutory period.
III–490; V–529; IX-605
Right of widow or heirs defeated by transfer. I–35
The deserted wife or minor child of the entryman may purchase as
his agent; entry must be referred to board of equitable adjudi-
cation. II–81
As the entryman in this case, if living, might have purchased at date
of the application (after contest, but b, fore hearing), this right de-
scended to his heirs. II–99, 523
A devisee has the right of purchase, as the transferee by will, applied
to case where entryman’s Widow had deserted him Several years
before his death, and he had devised land to his daughter, who
afterwards resided on and improved it as head of a family. II–82
Right of purchase recognized in case of entry made by an alien who
subsequently declared his intention to become a citizen. IV—564
Entry of alien may be purchased by widow. I-55
Alien heirs of a homestead entryman may purchase under section 2,
act of June 15, 1880. I–98; 11–98
Right of purchase can not be exercised by one who has voluntarily
relinquished the original entry. VIII–600; x–588
Alienation of land no bar to purchase. I–74
An entryman who has sold his interest in the land covered by the
original entry is not entitled to the right of purchase.
VIII–330; IX—311
Where the entryman sold his homestead right and delivered posses-
sion of the land, which was occupied and improved by the trans-
feree, his right of purchase is defeated. II—125
No right of purchase in transferee who became such after passage of
the act. - I-75; V–11
An entry fraudulent and void at inception is not subject to purchase
by a transferee. VI—457
Purchase may not be made by transferee when he is not the real
party in interest. WI–94
Transferee claiming under a purchase made during the pendency of
a contest takes nothing thereby. WI–641
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 203
XIII. ACT OF JUNE 15, 1880–Continued.
Transferee by bona fide instrument of the entryman’s improvements
and possessory right can purchase under said act. I–53
An executed or present transfer, and not an agreement to transfer in
future (after entry), is meant by the act. II–53
The right of purchase extends to a bona fide transferee, claiming
under an additional entry, although the original was canceled for
failure to submit proof within the statutory period. VII–301
Attempted transfer prior to act carries right of purchase, though the
(leed was not made till after the passage of the act. I–72
Possession of duplicate receipt not such evidence of transfer as to
authorize purchase. I–67
“Bona fide instrument in writing ” not necessarily a deed in legal
form. I–53
Transfer of land must be in writing to carry right of purchase. I-67
Purchaser should produce the duplicate receipt or account for its
loss, showing that no assignment thereof has been made. VII–283
The entry man can purchase only such part of the homestead as he
has not attempted to transfer ; if he has attempted to transfer,
only the transferee has the right of purchasing, in whole or in part,
unless there be a mutual agreement to the contrary. II–176
The assignee of an erroneously issued and invalid certificate of sol-
diers' additional homestead right may (in this case) purchase the
tract already entered by him. II–238
If a single woman makes entry and then marries, the husband is not
entitled to purchase in his own name in the event of her death.
Patent in Such case must issue to the heirs. I–84
Entryman can not purchase for the protection of transferee. VI-95
Register who was appointed after entry allowed to purchase. I-73
Purchase allowed where final proof failed. I–75
Extends to an entry where the original affidavit was illegally made.
W–115
Does not authorize the purchase of land entered by mistake. V-105
Purchase allowed though entry was void at inception. I—25
May be allowed where the entry is void at inception. I–25; V–118
The entryman or transferee can not purchase under an entry depend-
ing upon false and fraudulent statements and forged documents,
or where the entry was canceled for fraud prior to the passage of
said act. VII–94
Does not authorize the entryman or his transferee to purchase under
an entry which depends upon false and fraudulent statements or
forged documents. WII–301
A soldier's additional entry, based upon a certificate of right obtained
by false Statements, does not authorize a purchase under said act
IX—195
204 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
XIII. ACT OF JUNE 15, 1880–Continued.
Irregularity or illegality of entry—fraud not appearing—is not a bar
to the right. II–94
The right of purchase is not dependent upon compliance with the
homestead law. V–535; VII–283, 344
Right to purchase not dependent upon residence or occupancy.
- W–333
Purchase under this act not the equivalent to residence and cultiva-
tion. W–10
Does not authorize a purchase under a homestead entry made by an
Indian who is not a citizen. VIII-55
Purchase made under existing rulings and direction of the Commis-
sioner, by a transferee holding under certificate of additional right
issued to a member of the Missouri Home Guard, not disturbed.
VIII–235
There is no right of purchase in one to whom the lands have already
been patented under the general homestead law, notwithstanding
there may be doubt about the Validity of the title to them. II–114
Application under, may be entertained for land patented on entry
within the terms of the act on Surrender of the patent. W–301
Where one made homestead entry under the general law in 1874, and,
in good faith, a soldier's homestead entry in 1878, and pending
contest against the latter made application to purchase; held that,
notwithstanding the irregularity, he may make purchase. II-124
Cancellation of the original entry no bar to purchase.
I-57, 69, 96; IV-23; V-333, 529; VIII-403
Purchase authorized even after cancellation of original entry, if it
does not interfere with the subsequent right of another. VII–281
An intervening entry, canceled on relinquishment before application
to purchase, is no bar thereto. VIII–403
Right of purchase accorded the first applicant where several entries
had been canceled. I–96
An intervening entry made after the passage of the act and canceled
on relinquishment is no bar to purchase. VIII–75
The fact that after the cancellation of the Original entry the land was
entered by another will not defeat the right of purchase where
such subsequent entry was canceled prior to the application of the
purchaser. VIII–281
The right of purchase does not exist where the entry was canceled
and an adverse right intervened prior to the passage of the act.
WI–409
An intervening preemption claim bars the right of purchase.
1–69; III–373; IV-466,493; VII–325; x–410
Right of purchase defeated by intervening timber-culture entry. I-69
The preference right of a successful contestant superior to the right
of purchase. VII—329, 500
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS, 205
XIII. ACT OF JUNE 15, 1880–Continued.
When judgment against the entryman has become final under the
rules in the local office or on appeal, the contestant’s preferred
right of entry attaches, and if duly exercised bars the entryman's
right of purchase on a subsequent application. II–164
Purchase defeated by order of cancellation following successful con-
teSt. - W–606.
The entryman has right of purchase while his appeal from the Com-
missioner's action is pending before the Secretary prior to the can-
lation of his entry. II–51
Right of purchase not defeated by the pendency of proceedings on
special agent's report. VII–342
Application should not be carried to entry until right of appeal
allowed to adverse parties has expired. IV—21.
During the contest the right of purchase exists until final judgment
in favor of contestant. IW–21
Purchase hereunder not allowed pending contest concerning the right
of entry. IV—436, 466
Initiation of contest against the original entry suspends the right of
purchase under section 2 of said act. Iv–580; v-189,229,
606; VI-641; VIII–463, 579, 595; IX-18; X-111, 410,678
Purchase under said act pending contest good as against every one
except the contestant. VII–194
That the purchase was made during the pendency of a contest, is an
objection that can only be raised on bellalf of the contestant. X-392
Purchase made while the right was suspended in favor of a contest-
ant may be held valid if the contestant waives his right. VII-381
The suspension of the right of purchase during contest is for the ben-
efit of the contestant only. VII–145, 194
Purchase during the pendency of a contest is good as against every
one except the contestant and may stand if his right is waived.
IX—390
Purchase pending contest, where the contestant is apparently dis-
qualified to enter, should not be canceled, but suspended, and op-
portunity given the contestant to assert his claim. VII–145
e sº e * £ l 4- 4- •- 4-
A cash entry made subject to the right of a successful contestant,
who makes prečmption entry, may be suspended or relinquished,
with the right to apply for repayment. X-410
Purchase pending contest should not be canceled, but suspended.
and held subject to the contestant's preference right. VII–194
The rule as to purchase pending contest, laid down in Freise v. Hob-
son, governs in all cases not then finally adjudicated.
-- VI—446; VII–381, 500; x–678
Rights that became vested prior to the decision in Freise v. Hobson
are not affected by the change of ruling announced therein. IX-75
206 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
XIII. ACT OF JUNE 15, 1880–Continued.
A purchase allowed by final decision prior to the ruling in Freise v.
EHobson is not affected thereby, nor can the validity of Such pur-
chase be questioned collaterally by another applicant for the land.
- - X-129
An entry under said act is not invalid though the entryman may
have contracted to sell the land before making the entry.
II–94; V-535; VII–570; IX—311; x–129, 392
Right of purchase not defeated by the prior execution of a power of
attorney authorizing a sale of the land. X—39.2
A naked power of attorney to sell the land is not evidence of a sale,
and will not defeat the right of purchase. IX—311
Land returned as valuable for coal prior to the act of March 3, 1883,
not subject to purchase, though the original entry was made before
the passage of said act ( Alabama lands). IX—178
Purchase of land (Alabama) returned as valuable for coal before the
act of March 3, 1883, not permissible until after public offering.
VII–512; VIII–532
Application to purchase lands not subject thereto for want of public
offering should be suspended pending such offering. VIII–532
Cash purchase of land previously reported as valuable for coal may
be suspended until after public offering and treated as an applica-
tion to enter if the land is not sold at such offering (Alabama
lands). IX—178
Section 2 of said act is a part of the homestead system to which the
term “homestead laws” is generally applied in the joint resolution
of May 14, 1888. IX–604
Construed with the act of May 14, 1880. IV–580
Section 2 of said act not repealed by the joint resolution of May 14,
1888. IX–604
The required affidavit of an applicant to purchase may be made else-
where than in the land district, for good cause shown, before any
qualified officer having a seal. II–12S
A purchase allowed on the affidavit of the entry man's attorney will
not be disturbed where, after transfer of the land, the entryman
refuses to make the affidavit required by the regulations. IX–97
The allowance of a purchase by direction of the General Land Office
will not preclude a departmental determination as to its validity.
VII–301
The term “homestead laws " used in the second section of said act
in a generic sense. I-69
Discovery of coal on land after entry will not affect rights acquired
thereunder. VII–570
The proviso in this section was not necessary to protect Subsequent
entrymen, the intention of Congress, from general considerations,
being sufficiently clear without it. II–165
IDIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 207
XIII. ACT OF JUNE 15, 1880—Continued.
Application to purchase reserves the land. IW–32
Right of purchase, until exercised, does not preclude other disposi-
tion of the land by Congress. IX–178
Right of purchase is a subsisting claim to the land. V—529
Hearing ordered, after purchase, on the charge that the original entry
was fraudulent. IV—578
XIV. ACT OF MARCH 2, 1889.
Homestead right as enlarged by the act of March 2, 1889. (Circular
Of March 8, 1889.) VIII–314
Additional, made prior to the passage of the act of March 2, 1889,
may stand, though unauthorized when made. IX—543
Entry of contiguous tract authorized by the act of March 2, 1889, if
the original was for less than 160 acres, and the entryman still
owns and occupies the land covered thereby. VIII–42S
Entry of contiguous land may be made under section 5, act of March
2, 1889, by one who prior to said act had entered less than 160
acres and continues to own and occupy the land so entered.
X–6S1
Additional, under the act of March 2, 1889, allowed to include a tract
of adjacent land intended to be covered by the original entry on
which patent had issued. VIII–50()
Of contiguous land, under section 5, act of March 2, 1889, may be
based upon a homestead entry made in conformity with legal re-
quirements. X-7 S
Right to apply for additional, under the act of March 2, 1889, treated
as a preferred right in case pending at the passage of said act.
VIII–474
Additional, may be made under the act of March 2, 1889, where the
applicant has exhausted his rights under sections 2289 and 2306,
Revised Statutes, without securing 160 acres of land. IX—3SS
Right to make additional, under the act of March 2, 1889, accorded
upon a pending application may be treated as a preferred right.
X–78
Under the act of 1889, patent may issue on additional, without
further proof, where final proof has been made under the original
entry. X–6S1
Right may be exercised the second time by way of a transmuted pre-
emption claim under the act of March 2, 1889, if initiated prior
theretO. VIII–422; x–635
The phrase “had the benefit of such law,” as used in the act of
March 2, 1889, section 2, construed. X–63.5
Soldier's filing for one tract does not, under the act of March 2, 1889,
preclude the entry of another tract. IX-145, 382
208 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
XIV. ACT OF MARCH 2, 1889–Continued.
Right is restricted to the exclusive use and benefit of the entryman,
and on cancellation of an entry for non-compliance with law, he
can not reënter the same tract under the act of March 2, 1889, for
the benefit of a transferee. X-79
Idaho. (See States and Territories.)
Illinois. (See Swamp Land.)
Improvements. (See Final Proof, subtitles Commutation and Pre-
emption ; Residence ; Settlement.)
Purchase of timber-culture entryman's improvements gives no pre-
ferred right on cancellation of entry. II–50
Right of a Settler prior to survey to remove such as can be severed
from the realty conceded where the land is sold as an isolated tract.
IX—5:29
As to right of entryman to remove, after cancellation of entry; the
Department is vested with due authority to protect the land from
treS])aSS. WI–239
Indemnity. (See Private Claims ; Railroad Grant; School Land ;
Swamp Land.)
Indians. (See Homestead subtitle No. V; Indian Lands.)
Are not entitled to the benefit of the prečmption laws.
The general statutes of naturalization do not apply to.
I–491
I–491
Indian Lands. (See Final Proof, subtitle, Osage ; Reservation.)
I. GENERALLY.
II. ALLOTMENT.
III. CONVEYANCE.
IV.
V.
VI.
WII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
|XII.
XIII.
XIV.
XV.
KANSAS.
MILLE LAC.
NAVAJO.
() KLA HOMA.
OMAHA.
()SAGE.
( TTAWA AND CHIPPEWA.
SANTEE SIOUX.
SENECA.
SIOUX.
TURTLE MOUNTAIN.
UTE.
I. GENERALLY.
Circulars of May 31, 1884, and October 27, 1887, with respect to land
in the possession of Indian occupants. III–371; WI–341
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 209
I. GENERALLY –Continued.
Entries and filings not allowed upon lands in the occupancy of In-
dians. III–371; VI—341
Extinction of title under second section of the grant to the Northern
Pacific did not affect lands within technical reservations, but lands
within the “Indian country.” V–138, 343, 368
Preference right of Indians to lands in Bitter Root Valley recognized.
I–368
Disposition of, under treaty not effective prior to the action of Con-
greSS. W–138
Certificates of deposit for survey not received in payment for Sioux.
I–522
Drafts not received in payment for Pawnee. I–522
Annuity payments under the act of January 18, 1881, limited to home-
steaders. III–580
Sale of agency buildings and public lands under sections 2122 and
2123, Revised Statutes, specially confided to the discretion of the
Secretary of the Interior. III–425
The payment of 5 per cent to Kansas is limited to sales of public
lands and does not extend to trust lands. W–712
II. ALLOTMENT.
Allotments of, constitute an appropriation of the land. W–311
The allotment act of 1887 to be carried into effect under executive di.
rection. W–520
Allotments may be made by the regular agent in charge, or by
special agents. W–520
The allotment act of 1887 recognizes the right of additional allotment
to aggregate the amount named in said act. W–520
Under section 4, act of February 8, 1887, allotments are provided for
non-reservation Indians and their minors under the same restric-
tions as enacted for reservation Indians, with the additional re-
Quirement of actual settlement. VIII–647
Allotment to a minor child under section 4, act of 1887, need not be
contiguous to that made to the head of the family. VIII–647
Contiguity of the tracts should be required in case of allotments out-
side of a reservation. VIII–647
Orphan children under 18 years of age not entitled to the benefits of
section 4, act of February 8, 1887. VIII–647
Allotments are made by legal subdivisions of the section without
respect to the actual area included in such subdivision. VIII–647
Proof of actual settlement not required in allotments under section 4
of the act of 1887, to minors. VIII–647
The treaty of September 30, 1854, is not repealed, changed, or modi-
fied by the allotment act of February 8, 1887. IX—392
10464—14
210 DIG EST OF LAND DECISIONS.
II. ALLOTMENT—Continued.
The act of July 4, 1884, does not bar allotments on the Old Columbia
Reservation under section 4, act of February 8, 1887. WI–43
To non-tribal Indians dependent upon settlement. WI–45
Thirteen allotments within Fort Custer military reservation recog-
nized and protected. W–226
Patents issued under the act of 1887 should be in the form prescribed
thereby. W–520
The right of allotment is conferred by the treaty of September 30,
1854, and patents for allotments thereunder should in all cases be
in accordance with said treaty. IX—392
III. CONVEYANCE.
Purchaser under approved deed in accordance with the treaty of 1867
takes Only such title as the grantor may have. WI–251
The approval of a deed under the treaty of 1867 should not be de-
layed for the settlement of conflicting rights asserted under con-
veyance from parties who had no interest in the land. VI—2.51
The approval of a deed required by section 23 of the treaty of Febru-
ary 23, 1867, is not for the settlement of matters of inheritance or
as a bar to the assertion of claims by the legal heirs, but to satisfy
the Secretary of the Interior that the original reservee or his heirs
will receive the benefit of the grant. WI–251
Deed executed by the lawful heirs of the reservee should be approved
under the treaty of 1867. WI–251
Deed for, will not be approved after the death of the grantor, in case
the decedent leaves heirs. (See 13 L. D., 511.) X–606
Deed for, executed by Shawnee, does not convey title if not approved
by the Secretary. X–606
IV. KANSAS.
Sec. 4, act March 16, 1880, allowing entry without actual residence
on the land, refers only to tracts on the boundaries of the Kansas
Indian lands, contiguous to other lands (not Kansas Indian lands)
on which the entryman was actually residing, and to which he held
the legal title at date of the passage of the act. II–181
Second entries are not permissible beyond the limit of 160 acres.
II–184
The “actual settlers” contemplated by the law are those who have
made bona fide residence on and improvement of the land, except.
under the act of March 16, 1880, land contiguous to claims on
which they have made their homes. II–187
Entry of Kansas trust lands subject to contest. IX-329
V. MILLE LAC.
Acquired from certain Chippewa bands by treaty of March 20, 1865,
withheld from sale by act of July 4, 1884. W–541
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 211
V. MILLE LAC–Continued.
The Department has no authority to dispose of lands acquired from
the Mille Lac Indians by the treaty of 1864. (March 20, 1865.)
V–102, 541
The words “on the White Earth reservation" in the act of July 4,
1884, not consistent with the otherwise clearly expressed intention
of said act. W–541
The prohibition against the final disposition of lands included within
the act of July 4, 1884, extends to entries made prior to said act.
VIII-409
The approved cession by the Chippewa band of the Mille Lac In-
dians of their right of Occupancy is a condition precedent to the
right of proceeding, under section 6, act of January 14, 1889, with
entries made on lands covered by said right. (See 12 L. D., 52.)
* X–2
WI. NAVAJO.
Land reserved for the Navajo Indians by executive order of April
24, 1886, not subject to prečmption. - VII–324
VII. ORLA HOMA.
Act of March 2, 1889, opening to entry Seminole and Muscogee lands,
and providing for commission to treat with the Cherokee Nation
for the purchase of certain lands. VIII–338
Circular of April 1, 1889, opening lands to entry under the act of
March 2, 1889. VIII–336
Proclamation of the President opening lands to entry. VIII–341
VIII. OMAHA.
On entry of land within the former Omaha reservation the purchaser
is entitled to one year within which to make his first payment.
W-708
A claim for Omaha land based on settlement and filing made after
the time fixed by the proclamation under the act of August
7, 1882, and before the passage of the act of August 2, 1886, is
within the second proviso of the latter act; and the first pay-
ment thereon is not due until two years from the passage of said
act. VII–189
Declaration of forfeiture and order for public sale under section 3,
act of May 15, 1888. IX—326
IX. OSAGE. (See Alienation, subtitle, Osage Land : Filing, subtitle,
Osage.)
Osage trust lands, circular regulations of April 26, 1887, with respect
to entry of. W–581
The Secretary of the Interior has full authority to prescribe regula-
tions for the sale of Osage. VI-111; IX—353
212 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
IX. OSAGE–Continued.
A claimant for Osage, under the act of May 28, 1880, acquires no
right as against the United States until he has made final proof
and paid or tendered the purchase money. IX—353
The only conditions prerequisite to an entry of Osage land under sec-
tion 2, act of May 28, 1880, are that the claimant should be an
actual settler and have the qualifications of a prečmptor.
V—303, 442, 537; V1–103, 175; VII–251; Ix–98; x–23, 36
That the claimant of Osage land is in fact an “actual settler” must
be shown by residence following the alleged act of settlement and
preceding entry. X-23
Residence for six months preceding entry not required, but bona fide
Settlement must be shown. W–581; VI—783
One who settles in Collusion with and for the benefit of another is not
an “actual settler” under the act of May 28, 1880. VIII–173; X-39
An “actual settler” under the act of May 28, 1880, is one who goes
upon the land with the bona fide intent of making it his home under
the settlement laws, and does. Some act indicative of such intent.
VIII–173
Right to purchase Osage lands conditioned upon compliance with
prečmption law in the matter of settlement. IV—340
amº issy
Purchaser of Osage land must show a bona fide settlement. VII–277
Where one having the qualifications of a prečmptor makes a legal
Osage filing he can not make a second. VII–30
Purchase by filing on Osage land under the act of May 28, 1880, is
the exercise of a prečmptive right. W–537; VI-103
In entry of Osage, under the act of May 28, 1880, the oath required
of a prečmptor is not applicable. V–303, 537
Purchaser of Osage land not required to make affidavit before entry
that he has not made any contract whereby the title he may obtain
will inure to the benefit of another. V–310, VII–34; VIII–173
General prečmption laws not applicable to Osage entry. W-303, 537
Purchaser of Osage, may, after compliance with law and issuance of
certificate, sell the same or remove therefrom. IX–98
The Department may withhold from Osage filing lands within an
abandoned military reservation, on which are situated government
buildings, pending the sale of said buildings. X–602
Commutation allowed of homestead entry for trust lands lying within
the former limits of Fort Dodge military reservation. IV—145
Cash paid on commuted homestead entry for trust lands to be placed
to the credit of the Indians. IV-148
The provisions of the act of May 28, 1880, with respect to the quali-
fications of a purchaser of Osage lands, were not repealed by the
act of December 15, 1880, authorizing the disposal of a part of Fort
Dodge military reservation. WI–539
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 213
IX. OSAGE–Continued.
That part of the Fort Dodge military reservation which embraced
Osage trust lands and was relinquished by act of December 15,
1880, became subject thereby to disposal to purchasers that are
actual settlers and have the qualifications of a prečmptor. WI–175
The establishment of a military reservation on Osage trust lands did
not impair the trust imposed by the treaty of 1865, but postponed
its execution. WI–175
The sufficiency of residence shown under the act of August 11, 1876,
subject to review by the General Land Office. III–366
Claimants in default with settlement and improvement may purchase
the tracts within the sixty days limited in section 1, act of May 28,
1880. II–572
Gross amount of proceeds to be paid into the Treasury; no part
thereof can by withheld as compensation for the register and re-
ceiver, or for clerk hire. I–520
Y. OTTAWA AND CHIPPEW A.
Lands valuable mainly for pine timber are not subject to Valentine
Bcrip location, but can be disposed of only, at public offering, at
the minimum price of $2.50 per acre. II–90
XI. SANTEE SIOUX.
Directions given for opening lands to entry formerly embraced in
reservation. III–534
The purpose of that part of the executive order which provided that
certain Santee Sioux lands should be subject to settlement and
entry on May 15, 1885, was to fix a time when claims could be made
of record and the rights of claimants determined. IX—89
Within the Santee Sioux reservation, remaining unselected or unal-
lotted on April 15, 1885, were that day restored to the public
domain by force of the previous executive order. IX–89
XII, SENECA.
Application by Senecas for sale of a certain section 16 in Ohio denied,
as the government has fully performed its trust under the treaty
of February 28, 1831. WI–159
XIII. SIOUX.
Circular of March 25, 1890, under the act of March 2, 1889, providing
for the disposition of Sioux lands. X–562
The price of Sioux lands is fixed by the date of the first entry, and
settlers on lands once entered and then abandoned are required to
pay the same amount per acre as the first entryman. X—328
Under section 21, act of March 2, 1889, settlers on Sioux lands are
required to pay for the land when final proof is made. X–328
Adjustment of certain entries and settlement claims made under the
act of March 3, 1863, on incorrect survey. III–288
214 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
XIV. TURTLE MOUNTAIN.
Claim of Turtle Mountain Indians too indefinite to justify withhold.
ing the lands from survey. W–557
XV. UTE.
Ute lands not subject to private cash entry until after public offer.
ing. VII–191
Ute lands under the act of June 15, 1880, subject only to disposal
for cash. VII–191
Lands within former Ute reservation not subject to homestead entry.
III–298
The establishment of the White River military reservation on lands
Subject to disposition under the act providing for the sale of the
Ute Reservation did not impair the trust created by said act, but
had the effect to suspend the execution thereof. VII–191
The status of lands embraced within the former Ute Reservation
not changed by the establishment of a military cantonment therein.
III-297
A Soldier's additional homestead entry, made within the ten-mile strip
described in the act of July 28, 1882, may be perfected on the pay-
ment of the cash price. IX–293
The purpose of section 3, act of July 28, 1882, was to confirm the
entries, settlements, and locations within the ten-mile strip of those
who had entered therein believing it to be public land, subject how-
ever to the payment of the price fixed by law for the benefit of the
Indians. IX—293
Insanity.
Under act of June 8, 1880, the duly appointed guardian of an insane
homestead settler can, after five years from date of the entry, make
final proof. t II–101
If the insane person becomes sane before the expiration of the five
years, he must resume residence and cultivation. II–102
It is advisable for a guardian or trustee to file his address in the
local office, with proof of his authority to act, in order that he may
be notified of any attack on the entry. II–102
To be within the provisions of act June 8, 1880, the claim must
have been of record prior to the declaration of insanity. II–103
The wife of an insane person, who had settled on and improved a
tract, but who had not filed a claim for it, may make entry in her
own name, as head of a family, her husband being regarded as civ-
illy dead. II–102
Notice may not be served on a contestee who is insane nor on the
superintendent of an asylum where he is confined. II–230
Notice of contest against the entry of an insane person must be served
in accordance with the statutory regulations of the State or Terri-
tory. X-238
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 215
Instructions and Circulars. (See Table of, page 63.)
Iowa. (See Stramp Land.)
Island. (See Public Land; Survey.)
Surveyed on the petition of a settler should be offered at public sale
as an isolated tract. IX—529
Accretions to, formed by washing or recession, become part of the
lands they adjoin. I-596
Isolated Tract. (See Public Sale.)
Judgment. (See Jurisdiction; Res Judicat.a)
Is final as to the tribunal wherein rendered when all the issues of
law and fact necessary to be determined have been disposed of so
far as that tribunal had power and authority to dispose of them.
WI–563
When a final judgment of cancellation is rendered by the Commis-
sioner the land is thereby opened to appropriation without waiting
for the expiration of the time allowed for appeal from such judg-
lment. v1–563, 700; VII–163; x–222
The cancellation of an entry by order of the General Land Office takes
effect as of the date the declsion is made. VII–163
Of the Department deprives the General Land Office of further juris-
diction except in the matter of enforcing the decision. X—230
Generally the judgment should follow the substance of the notice and
charge, but if fraud is shown, though not charged, it justifies can-
cellation. III–462
Can not become final until the decision is promulgated and due
notice given thereof. VII–42
Judgment rendered nunc pro tune of the same force and effect as
though entered at the proper time. I–210
The Commissioner may not execute a decision of the Secretary other-
wise than as made; when the record, with the decision, is returned,
it is in the nature of a remittitur in courts of law. II–523
The informal notation of the words “set aside ’’ opposite the descrip-
tion of a tract of land in an approved list of school-indemnity selec-
tions will not be treated as a rejection or cancellation of said
selection. V—352
Against one claiming as a grantee, will not affect rights of the grantor
in the absence of notice or proof of the alleged transfer. IX—71
Decision of State officers charged with duty of adjudicating land
claims, where no appeal is provided for, is final, and binds the
parties and their privies. II–13
Of an Assistant Secretary of the Interior is the judgment of the
Secretary. IX—588
The decisions of a court may not be attacked in a collateral proceed-
ing. II–365
216 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
Judgment—Continued.
Extra-judicial opinion, given on ea parte statement, will not preclude
subsequent action. IX-182, 546
A decision of the General Land Office, though erroneous, is an expo.
sition of the law so long as it remains in force, upon which settlers
have the right to rely; but one pleading such a decision in his
defense must prove that in fact he was guided by it. II–154
Jurisdiction. (See Contest ; Patent ; Practice, subtitle Notice ; Res
Judicata.)
Of local office is acquired by “due notice to the settler.” II–58, 66;
III–209, 251, 310; IV-255, 425, 440; V-658; V1–266,300; VII–200, 484
Acquired when the information is accepted, notice issued, and serv-
ice made thereof. VII–41
Not acquired by the local office in the absence of due and legal no.
tice. III–343; VII–49, 198
The question of, may be raised at any stage of proceedings, and upon
slight suggestion in all tribunals. I–174, 237 ; VI-409
Objection to, saved by exception. Iv–378, 440, 537
May be conferred by consent as to parties, but not as to subject-mat-
ter. I–474; X-274
Retained over the question where the decision of the Department is
suspended. VIII–243
Of the Land Department exists until the issue of patent. V–49, 174
Of the Commissioner, under the direction of the Secretary, extends
generally to all matters pertaining to the disposition of the public
land. V–Y73
The issuance of final certificate on the direction of the Commissioner
will not preclude his successor from ordering a hearing on the
merits of the case. W–174
Will be presumed from the action of the Department. IV—362
Not defeated by death of appellee after notice of appeal. VII–500
Whether the Department acted without, will not be considered in a
collateral proceeding. IV—357
Of the local office not restricted in hearings ordered by the General
Land Office or the Department. W–1
The Secretary of the Interior, in cases on appeal, has power to cor-
rect errors disclosed that prejudice public interests. WI–738
Want of, in the General Land Office, will not limit the authority of
the Department. V–49; VI—371; VIII-463
Of General Land Office over an entry is not limited by the approval
of final proof and issuance of certificate by the local office.
VI-265; VIII-269; Ix–316
Of the Commissioner not affected by failure of the receiver to con-
cur in, or dissent from, the opinion of the register. WI-779
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 217
Jurisdiction—Continued.
Is conferred upon the General Land Office to control the action of
the surveyor-general in issuing certificates of location under the
act of June 2, 1858. - VIII–463
The Department will not assume, on the relinquishment of a patentee
executed under protest in order to protect his rights on appeal.
VIII–70
Over public land and the title thereto remains in the Land Depart-
ment till the record of completed patent is made. I–18, 22
Over patented land restored on surrender of patent. V–301
The Department will not take action on a question that lies properly
within the jurisdiction of the courts. VII–255
Of United States district court in private claims under the act of
July 1, 1864. W–320
A claim before a tribunal without, is not sub judice. W–415
Presumption as to correct exercise of, in courts of limited authority,
when once shown. V–283, 320, 573
Of district courts in Louisiana in the matter of probate and suc-
cession. W–158
Presumed in courts where it is general. W–161
Being apparent, the judgment is not subject to collateral attack.
W–283
In matters of general, courts properly constituted determine their
OWI). * I–226
Not granted to United States courts to stay proceedings in State
COurtS. W–481
A term of the district court having been held by United States cir-
cuit judge, it will be presumed that the formalities prescribed by
the act of March 2, 1855, were duly observed. I–223
Presumption in favor of, when exercised by judicial tribunal.
1–175, 223,422
Where created by special statute for special purpose, may be prop-
erly questioned. I—227
Apparent want of authority in an executive officer of the govern-
ment to set aside the decree of a Federal court where the United
States was a party to the Suit. I–177
Of the Land Department under the prečmption law not restricted by
the allowance of final proof. VIII-269
Where affirmatively shown by the record, conclusive. I–223
Judgment or order, without, is no protection to those acting there-
under. I–223
Kansas. (See States and Territories.)
Lake. (See Scrip; Survey; Swamp Lands.)
An inland lake, two miles long, is not navigable in the sense that its
Waters can be put to a public use for the purpose of commerce.
- III–201
218 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
Land Decisions.
Directions given for citations from the departmental publications of.
III–419
Land Department. (See Jurisdiction ; Officer.)
I. GENERALLY.
II. SECRETARY.
III. COMMISSIONER.
IV. REGISTER AND RECEIVER,
V. LOCAL OFFICE.
VI. SURVEYORS-GENERAL.
VII. SPECIAL AGENT.
I. GENERALLY.
Whenever any action is required to be taken by an officer of the Land
Department, all proceedings tending to defeat such action are im-
pliedly inhibited. II–243, 610
In the absence of allegation or showing to the contrary, it is pre-
sumed that the officers of, have properly discharged their duty.
II–465
Administration of, ought not to be withheld from regular business
because of possible hardship in a few cases. IV-144
The disqualification to enter public lands contained in section 452,
Revised Statutes, extends to officers, clerks, and employes in any
branch of the public Service under the control of the Commissioner
of the General Land Office. (See 11, L. D., 96 and 348.) X–97
Regulations of, made in conformity with statutes, have all the force
and effect of law. II–709; V-169; v1–111; Ix–86, 189, 284, 353
Regulations of, will not be permitted to defeat a statutory right.
II–283; v-429
II. SECRETARY.
In acts of, the assent of the President is presumed. V–520
The decision of the Acting Secretary is in effect the act of the Secre-
tary. V–277
The decision of an assistant, has the same legal effect as the decision
of the Secretary. IX—588
Authority of, in all matters pertaining to the disposition of public
land or settlement of private claims. V–49, 483, 570
Will correct errors of local office in proper case made. V—439
Official duty of head of Department not merely ministerial. IV—443
May not authorize an unlawful act. IV—67
Supervisory powers, how invoked. W–23
III. COMMISSIONER.
General supervisory authority conferred upon. I–455
Is wested with discretionary authority. III–55; IX-627; x–491
D1GEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 219
III. COMMISSIONER—Continued.
Authority of, to formulate regulations W–27
Action in passing upon decisions of local office is judicial. W–247
General authority of Commissioner in all matters affecting the dis-
position of the public lands. V-570; VIII–463
The order of the Commissioner is, in contemplation of law, the order
of the Secretary, as the acts of the heads of Departments, within
the scope of their powers, are in law the acts of the President.
II–713
The Commissioner has authority to determine questions arising on
special sale of lands. IV—25
Right to obtain requisite information before the rendition of judg-
ment. IV—316
A decision rendered by the Acting Commissioner has the same force
as the act of the Commissioner. W–504
IV. REGISTER AND RECEIVER,
The duties of the register and receiver are distinct, and neither can
discharge the duty of the other in the absence of express authority.
I—150, 545
A vacancy in the office of either disqualifies the remaining incumbent
for the performance of the duties of his own office during such
VaCan Cy. IX—365
Authority to act for each other. IX—368
Relative duties of, considered and discussed. IX—45
Where one officer performs a clerical or ministerial act for the other,
the law will regard the act as performed by the proper officer.
IX—45
The official acts of the register and receiver are subject to supervi.
sion, and may be approved or disapproved by the Commissioner of
the General Land Office. VII–86.
A clerk de facto (with the register's knowledge and sanction) is com.
petent to receive an application (to amend a filing) and to give it
legal effect. # II–613
Seven hours service required of district office employés each day, Sun-
days and holidays excepted. III–333
Must receive applications (for entry) only at the place designated for
the transaction of Official business. II–320
Acceptance of an application at a place other than the local office is
not legal acceptance. II–320
Not required to transact business outside of office hours. WI–1
Official acts of, outside of office hours not invalid. WI–1
Are not authorized to do public business privately or in chambers.
III–109
No authority to waive a rule of practice. WI–236
Have no authority to change an entry of record by erasure. VII–220
220 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
IV. REGISTER AND RECEIVER—Continued.
May, with the approval of the Commissioner, adopt regulations as to
the order of business in their offices. VII–504
Wested with discretion in matters of final proof. IV—197
Judgment of, conclusive when it comes collaterally in question. IV-93
The duties of the district officers are not merely perfunctory, but to
be exercised within the lines of judicial discretion. III–85
In deciding upon prečmption claims act judicially. IV–93
Act judicially in the trial of a contest case. WI–626
Should determine the rights of parties to contest and decide accord-
ingly. IV—203
Decisions of local office of no effect until passed in review by the
General Land Office. III–567; V-246
Decisions of, entitled to special considerations where the evidence is
conflicting. VI–225, 330, 660
Decisions of, as to matters of fact, entitled to special consideration.
IV-135
May inspect the land involved in contest, after due notice to the
parties and during the trial. V1–626; VIII–38
Must promptly forward to the new local office decisions received
from the General Land Office involving lands transferred to a new
district. II–222
Instructions to, of January 6, 1890 (July 16, 1885), in the matter of
official correspondence. X—2
The receiver has no authority to accept money in advance of the
time when the local office is ready to act upon and allow the appli-
cation to enter. WI–713
Acceptance of application, fees, and Commissions prior to cancella-
tion of an entry with promise to make application of record on
cancellation is unauthorized and gives applicant no rights. II–49
Failure of the receiver to account for money accepted without au.
thority is not a default as to any obligation due the government.
WI–713
The receiver has no authority to receive money as the agent of an
applicant for public land, and such action creates no obligation
against the government. VIII–77
A payment to the receiver in advance of the time when the local
office is ready to act upon the application to purchase makes the
receiver the agent of the applicant, for the purpose of payment,
and if the application is rejected the receiver is individually liable
for repayment. WI–713
TV. LOCAL OFFICE.
List of. I–664
Term “land office,” used for “General Land Office,” in the act of May
27, 1880. I–9, 16
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 221
V. LOCAL OFFICE–Continued.
Access to records accorded for the purpose of making abstracts for
the use of county clerks. I–523
The public is entitled to access to the records of the local offices when
the conduct of the public business will fairly permit. III–174
Clerk employed under authority of receiver is entitled equitably to
his salary for Services rendered pending action of the Commis-
sioner on the appointment. WI–810
Persons accepting employment in local office, for the term of such
service waive the right of entry there. IV—77
Right of local officers and their employés to make entry of public
land. (See subtitle No. 1.) VI-105
Rights of parties not lost through temporary closing of. II–211
Removal of local office from Deadwood to Rapid City, Dakota.
VII–527
VI. SURVEYORS-GENERAL.
Duties of surveyors-general are performed under the direction of the
Commissioner of the General Land Office. III–495
Official communications of a surveyor-general should not be over the
signature of his chief clerk. III–263
Employé in the office of the surveyor-general not allowed to enter
lands. (See 11 L. D., 96 and 348.) X–97
Deputy mineral surveyor not debarred from entering public land.
WI–105
VII. SPECIAL AGENT.
May administer oaths on the investigation of fraudulent claims, but
not where he acts as the agent of the government at hearings.
III–113
Louisiana. (See School Land.)
Michigan. (See School Land ; Swamp Land.)
Military Reservation,
Mineral Land. (See Coal Land ; Patent ; Mining Claim.)
I. GENERALLY.
II. ALABAMA.
I. GENERALLY.
Rule laid down as to what constitutes. I–560
Regulations governing entry of lands containing borax and alkaline
earths, sulphur, alum, and asphalt. I–561
Borax, soda, alum, oil, etc., are minerals, within the meaning of the
mining laws. II–708
Fire-clay or kaoline subject to mineral entry. I–565
A deposit of “brick clay” will not warrant the classification of land
3.Se & WI–761
222 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
I. GENERALLY-Continued.
Gypsum and limestone held to be minerals. I–560
Lands containing mineral springs, not of a Saline character, are sub-
ject to sale under the general laws. I–562
Saline lands, or salt springs, must be disposed of under the act of
January 12, 1877. VII–549
The act of January 12, 1877, is not applicable to Utah, hence there
is no authority for the disposition of salt lands in that Territory.
VII–549
Land chiefly valuable for deposits of building stone, containing no
lodes or veins of quartz or other rock in place, may be entered as
a placer claim. III–116
Oil land held as mineral. IV-60, 284
Proof that neighboring land contains oil not sufficient to defeat agri-
cultural entry of land returned as subject thereto. IV—60
Coal is not, within the meaning of the act of June 3, 1878; see Coal
Land. II–827
Is such land as will pay to mine by the usual methods. VII-265
The character of land as a present fact is the question raised on issue
joined as to its actual character. IV–478; VII-265
Character as, must appear as a present fact to defeat an agricultural
entry upon land returned as subject thereto. WI–218
The land being returned as agricultural, the burden of proof is with
the mineral claimant. II–714, 721; III–234
Mineral claimant for land returned as agricultural must show, as a
present fact, that mineral can be obtained therefrom in such quan-
tities as to make the land imore valuable for mining than agricul-
ture VII-265; VIII–440
One denying the prima facie agricultural character of a tract covered
by a claim (homestead) Inust show, not that it is of little value for
agriculture, not that adjoining or neighboring lands are mineral,
and not, theoretically, that the tract may possibly develop minerals
in the future, but that, as a present fact, proved by the actual pro-
duction of minerals, it is mineral land. II–721
The burden of proof is upon an agricultural claimant for land returned
as mineral. VII-265, 532
The burden of proof is upon an agricultural claimant for land returned
as, to show the fact of its non-mineral character, but he is not
required to prove affirmatively its agricultural character. x–311
In case of contest, where the land is returned as, the burden is not
shifted to the mineral claimant by the non-mineral affidavit and
publication of notice by the agricultural claimant. X—311
The character of land as a present fact is the question for determi.
nation on issue joined between a mining and agricultural claimant.
X-536
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 223
I. GENERALLY-Continued.
A decision that land returned as mineral is in fact agricultural puts
the burden of proof upon one alleging a subsequent discovery of
mineral. VII–532
The presumption as to the character of land returned as mineral is
not forcible where, after long-continued mining operations, the
land has been abandoned by the mineral claimants as no longer
profitable. VII-265
The existence of mineral in such quantities as to justify expenditures
in the effort to secure it should be established as a present fact in
order to bring the land within the class subject to mineral entry.
VII–71
Whenever mineral and agricultural or town-site claims conflict the
comparative value of the land for mining or agriculture is in ques-
tion and must be considered. . II–717, 720, 721
Where the testimony to agricultural character was speculative, and
the land never paid the expenses of cultivating it, but the minerals
obtained during several years paid for the plant and for mining
expenses, it is subject to mineral entry. II–719
By their designation as “agricultural ” in the official plats, lands in a
mineral belt were set apart as prima facie “clearly agricultural,”
under section 11, act of July 26, 1866 (section 2342, Revised Stat-
utes). II–712, 850
Section 2341, Revised Statutes, was intended to relieve persons who
had settled on lands theretofore designated as mineral when they
were afterwards found to be agricultural ; section 2342, Revised
Statutes, gave the right of settlement on said lands when duly set
apart as agricultural - - II–715
Where a placer application has been filed on a homestead entry of
land both claims may be suspended until after a hearing upon the
character of the land. II–712
An entry (homestead) of record bars the filing of a placer application
for the tract until after a determination of the character of the
land. II–712
Hearing to determine character of land not ordered in the absence
of application to appropriate the same. VIII–30
All evidence as to character of land should receive due consideration.
III–234
The government interested in determining the character of land.
III–234
Failure to appeal from finding of local officers as to character of land
renders their decision final. VIII–30
Determination after hearing, as to character of land alleged to be
mineral, is final. W–132
The mineral character of a tract not established by a decision ren-
dered in a case where such question was not in issue. WII–54
224 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
I. GENERALLY-Continued.
Discovery of mineral after sale will not affect the title. III–169;
V–193; VI—393; VII–570; Ix–83, 411
The exemption, under the head of “known mines,” in the prečmp-
tion law applicable only to the conditions existing at the time of
sale. VI—393
The phrase “known mines” construed. VII–73
Found to be such after patent under railroad grant, does not affect
the title. W–193
May be included within military reservation and while thus reserved
is not subject to other appropriation. I–552
Townsite may be located upon, subject to rights of mineral claim-
antS. I–556
So known would not pass under the townsite patent. IV-556; V-131
Known to be such excepted from the railroad grant (Central Pacific).
V–193
Known to be such at date of Survey, does not pass under school
grant. III–233; IV-75; V-696; VI—412; VII–459; Ix–408
Locations prior to survey not in conflict with reserved school sections.
- IV—96
Order of March 24, 1885, suspending action on mineral applications
for school lands, revoked. - IV—531
Segregation survey may be ordered if found necessary to set apart
the mineral from the agricultural land in a 40-acre tract. VIII–443
Segregation survey of land covered by homestead entry will not af.
fect the status of said entry, So far as the contiguity of the tracts
is concerned. IX-143
May be segregated from land returned as agricultural at the expense
of the mineral claimant. VIII–440
Fee of, is indivisible; one can not take title to the surface and an-
other to the mineral underneath. V—256; VII–283, 321
Settlers upon, without protection. V-131.
In Missouri, disposed of as agricultural. I–599
In Alaska, regulations concerning. IW-128
II. ALABAMA.
Coal and iron lands in Alabama; circular of April 9, 1883. I–655
In Alabama, disposed of as agricultural. I-97
The act of March 3, 1883, only operated on lands withdrawn and
designated as mineral. III–173
The act of March 3, 1883, conferred no rights save in cases where
entries had been made prior to its passage. III–176
Lands covered by entries and Valid applications prior to the act of
March 3, 1883, were not affected by said act.
III–169, 172; IV—476; Ix–635
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 225
II. ALABAMA-Continued.
The act of March 3, 1883, was not intended to change previous con-
structions of the law. III–177
Homestead entry on, initiated by settlement prior to the act of 1883,
though not then of record may be patented under said act.
VIII–448
The protection given by the act of March 3, 1883, to a bona fide entry
previously made, does not extend beyond the relinquishment of
such entry. VII–560; IX—178
Effect of the act of March 3, 1883, on a homestead entry for lands of
known mineral character. VIII–532
The general instructions of April 22, 1880, revoking mineral with-
drawals and placing the burden of proof upon mineral claimants,
are applicable to Alabama lands. III–169
Land reported as valuable for coal prior to the act of March 3, 1883,
is not subject to homestead entry until after public offering. II–35;
VII–461, 512; IX—203, 635, 643
Land returned as valuable for coal, and offered prior to the act of
March 3, 1883, is not subject to entry if not offered since the pas-
sage of said act. VIII–74
Laud returned as valuable for coal prior to the passage of the act of
March 3, 1883, not subject to purchase under the act of June 15,
1880, until after public offering. VIII–532
Entry of land reported valuable for coal prior to the act of 1883
(Alabama), without the prerequisite offering, may be suspended
until after offered and then reinstated if not sold. IX—635
An entry made in good faith of land reported prior to the act of
March 3, 1883, as valuable for coal, and not offered, may be sus-
pended pending such offering, and confirmed thereafter if not sold,
or, if the entryman so elects, the entry may be canceled, with the
right to repayment and without prejudice to his homestead right
elsewhere. IX–203
The right of a successful contestant can not be exercised upon lands
reported valuable for coal prior to the act of March 3, 1883, and
not thereafter offered at public sale, but his application may be
suspended pending such offering, and considered as of the date
presented, if the land is not sold. X-140
An ea parte showing not sufficient to overcome the return showing
the land “valuable for coal.” IX—635
Land not known as, covered by settlement and filing made before the
act of March 3, 1883, need not be “offered” before the allowance
of prečmption entry. VIII–297
A tract reported in 1879 as containing valuable coal, but whereon a
homestead entry was allowed in 1883, which was afterwards relin-
guished and canceled, must be offered at public sale. II–36
10464—15
226 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
II. ALABAMA –Continued.
One who settles on mineral land in 1871 acquired no right to it by
virtue of section 3, act of May 14, 1880, and is not protected by the
act of March 3, 1883. II–35
Mining Claim. (See Mineral Land; Patent.)
I. GENERALLY.
II. BY WHOM.
III. LOCATION.
IV. RELOCATION.
V. APPLICATION.
VI. SURVEY.
VII. NOTICE.
VIII. ADVERSE CLAIM.
IX. PROTESTANT.
X. DISCOVERY AND EXPENI) 1T U RE.
XI. ENTRY.
XII. LODE.
XIII. PLACER.
XIV. MILL SITE.
I. GENERALLY.
Mining laws recognize prior local laws, rules, and regulations. I–588
Mining laws recognized jurisdiction assumed by the courts. I–584
Failure to comply with local regulations matter for protest or adverse
suit. W–131
Includes a tunnel location. I–584
Law and regulations contemplate that primary decision in, shall be
made by the local office. IV-376
The case coming up on appeal from the local office Without a decision
on the merits, the papers are returned for its action. IV–376
In a hearing ordered to test the validity of, it rests with the protest-
ant to overcome the legal presumption that the entry is valid and
regular. IX—538
The Land Department will inquire into questions affecting compli-
ance with the law. I–584
A hearing may be ordered to determine whether there has been due
compliance with law, though the charge is not made until after
entry. * X–157
A judgment favorable to the applicant, in judicial proceedings insti-
tuted by an adverse claimant, is no bar to a subsequent investiga:
tion on behalf of the government to determine whether said appli-
cant has in fact complied with the law. IV-314; VII–415; X-184
When special agent reports non-compliance with the law, whilst the
proofs show such compliance, hearing should be ordered and special
agent directed to produce his evidence. II–788
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 227
I. GENERALLY-Continued.
May be located on land shown by an irregular survey to be school
land. VII–459
Where a town settlement is made upon a mineral claim the patent
should contain the clause of reservation, even if the settlement is
unprotected by entry. III–84
Patent for, should not contain a clause reserving the right of a town
site. VIII–602
Assignments of interests in mining possessions are valid, even by
parol transfer. - I–595
Patent issued to applicant, after quitclaim, privity of parties being
shown. -- III–340
Miners' rights not divested by subsequent appropriation of the land
for a military reservation. I–552
II. BY WHOM.
The right to purchase mineral land is restricted to citizens of the
United States, or those who have declared their intention to be.
come such. X–641
Cam not be entered by a citizen of the United States, acting as a
trustee, for the benefit of an alien corporation. X–641
Proof of citizenship is required from the beneficiaries where the ap-
plicant for entry is a trustee. X–641
Regulations respecting entry by one applying as trustee. II–725
Alien, after declaration of intention, may take advantage of his pre-
vious acts done under the mining law. IV—565
Entry may be made by purchaser in good faith of the mineral loca-
tion made by a register. II–754
A mining company, on application for patent, must show that it has
complied with local requirements in the matter of filing its articles
of incorporation. VIII–195
Entry of deputy surveyor within the district for which he is ap-
pointed not illegal WI–105
III. LOCATION.
Under which the requirements of the law have been complied with
confers a vested right. IV—476
The right conferred by a valid mining location amounts to a property,
capable of being employed or transferred, entirely separate and
distinct from the fee of the land. I–615
A location on surveyed lands, since the act of 1872, must conform to
the public surveys only so far as is reasonably practicable; it may
be for 12,000 feet of the bed of a non-navigable stream in a caſion.
e II–764
Valid location can not be made on a possessory right acquired wrong-
fully. § III–267
228 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
III. LOCATION.—Continued.
Surface ground is an incident of the lode, and a location of surface
ground which does not include any part of the lode claimed to have
been discovered is invalid II–744
A location with discovery shaft on vacant ground may not include
said ground and non-contiguous ground on the same vein or lode,
- the two parts of the junior location being separated by an inter.
vening patented claim. II–735, 736
Location and working for mining purposes segregates the land, and
prevents utilization of a discovery within its limits. II–744
Surveyors-general required to note date of location on approved
plats of survey. III–40
Patent will not issue for location within prior patented lines. I–593
Whether a “location ” by the local officers is within rule prohibijing
“entries” by them quare. II–754
IV. RELOCATION.
If work is renewed on a claim after it has been open to relocation
but before such relocation, the rights of the original owners stand
as though there had been no default. VIII–388
The validity of a relocation can not be questioned by the original
locator in a proceeding instituted to determine whether said locator
has complied with the law in the matter of the statutory annual
expenditure. VII–506; x–157
The illegality of a relocation should be shown in a proceeding for that
purpose. VII–506
A hearing may be ordered on a protest filed by a prior applicant
against an entry based upon a relocation, alleging that the claim
was not subject to relocation, and the counter-charge that the right
of the protestant had been finally excluded by adverse proceedings
prior to said relocation. N–534
Abandonment is admitted if, after a relocation application alleging
it, the original locators fail to adverse; if adverse claim is filed,
the question is a proper one for the courts. II–698
No proof of abandonment is required of relocators alleging it in their
application. II–698
The relocation of an erroneous location, allowed by the laws of Col.
orado, must be substantially the same as the original location; ad-
ditional ground may not be included, if existing rights (by color of
law) are interfered with. IL-74()
In enlarging a location (placer) the relocation is restricted to 20 acres
additional. II–763
Relocation of claims never adjusted to the public survey allowed,
IV—225
W. APPLICATION. º -
Provisions of circular of May 11, 1885, extended to applications prior
to December 4, 1887. W–468
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 229
V. APPLICATION.—Continued.
Circular of March 24, 1887, as to proof required on application for
patent. VIII–505
Applications should be received in the order of time as presented.
I–562
In applicatlon for survey the location must be properly marked and
recorded. I–581
Application for entry not properly followed up confers no exclusive
rights. IV—30
Abstract to approximate date of application. IV–374, 515
Application embracing more than one lode location will not be re-
ceived. (Circular June 8, 1883.) II–725, 726
Application for patent or survey may embrace several contiguous
locations. W–199
Placer application not limited to single location. IV-221, 284
Application may embrace several locations. II–772; VI-808
Application in conflict with prior pending claim not received. I–542
Application for lode patent, within limits of patented placer, alleg-
ing that the existence of the lode was known at date of placer
application, should be received, subject to adverse proceedings of
placer claimant. I–564
An application for land partly within a prior town-site patent must
be restricted to the land not in conflict. IX–83
A mineral entry of record, dormant for seven years, held to have
barred an application. II–769
Application allowed by the receiver instead of the register not dis-
turbed. I–545
Proof of incorporation furnished by a mining company, under a
patented entry, and of record in the General Land Office, may be
accepted in a subsequent application by said company. IX-48
For placer is barred by a homestead entry of record, until after a
hearing on the character of the land. II–712
Application for a water right, under guise of a placer claim, will be
rejected. f II–774
Application embracing a location, assigned to applicant, and a relo-
cation of said location enlarging it, must show $500 expended on
each location ; the enlargement must not exceed 20 acres. II–763
Rule that application by an association of persons may not be for
more than one location, or for more than 160 acres, does not ex-
tend to lands containing deposits of borax, soda, alum, etc., in
California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, and Wyoming. II–708
VI. SURVEY.
Survey of, instructions. 1–693; III–540, 542
No deposit is required to accompany an application for survey in the
field, the applicant being free to contract as he pleases; for plot-
ting or office work a deposit must be made. II–773
230 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
VI. SURVEY –Continued. -
Money deposited for the cost of office work, and remaining unex-
pended, may be applied on new. VIII–102
Section 2334, Revised Statutes, was intended to protect applicants
from unjust charges for survey and publication. II–773
Survey must follow the location notice upon which it is ordered.
This rule applies to amended as well as original locations. VII–81
Survey of, should exhibit boundaries and conflicts. V-199
Where the survey did not follow the amended location the entry
should not be canceled, but a new survey required. VII–81
Evidence may be submitted in explanation of an apparent discrep-
ancy between the survey and the claim as marked out upon the
ground and described in, the location. VII–169
Error in boundary of claim as shown by survey stakes may be cor-
rected through the surveyor-general's office. IV-117
Survey must be made by actual measurement on the ground. VI-718
Survey must distinguish the several locations, and exhibit the boun-
daries of each, if the application embraces more than one location.
VI—S08
Object of establishing mineral monuments. VII–392
Amended survey will be required where no connection is shown with
a mineral monument or a corner of the public surveys. VII–475
In the survey of, a connecting line run to a section corner on a town-
ship line is sufficient, though such township may not be subdivided.
X-391
Entry submitted to the board of equitable adjudication in case of
erroneous description of connecting line where the error resulted
from an erroneous marking of a corner located by public survey.
- VI—646
Amended survey may be allowed, where, through error of the sur.
veyor, the connecting line is incorrectly located, but the claim is
sufficiently identified by the description given and good faith is ap-
parent. After such amendment the entry may be equitably con-
firmed. X–173
Amended survey permissible when, through error of deputy surveyor,
the connecting line was erroneously located, but the claim was
sufficiently identified by the description given. After such amend-
ment the entry may be submitted to the board of equitable adju-
dication. VI–718
A new survey under the circular of December 4, 1884, will not be re-
Quired where one in accordance with existing practice had been
approved by the surveyor-general prior to the receipt of said cir-
cular. VII–318
In a survey that conflicts with a prior lode claim, where the ground
in conflict is excluded, the applicant is limited to a line passing
through the point where the lode intersects the exterior line of the
senior location. VIII-361
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 231
VI. SURVEY-Continued.
Survey of consolidated claim embracing several contiguous lode loca-
tions allowed. IV—362
In requiring an amended survey the applicant should be informed
that his entry will be canceled if the requirement is not complied
with in a specified period. VII–475
Proceedings based upon a false survey and publication are invalid.
I–593
VII. NOTICE.
In giving notice of application the required period of time must be
covered by each form of notice. W–510
Exclusion of conflicting areas must appear in published and posted
notices. I–543
Notice must give the course and length of a line connecting the claim
with a corner of the public surveys, or with a mineral monument.
W–685
In the notice of application for patent the description of the claim
should include the course and length of a line connecting said claim
with the public survey or a mineral monument. VII–392
A notice of application that does not connect the claim with the
public surveys is insufficient; and the defect can not be cured by
equitable action in the presence of adverse claimants who have not
had legal notice. - X—198
The selection of a newspaper rests in the sound discretion of the reg-
ister; other things being equal, the convenience of the applicant
should be consulted. II–758
The register may exercise his official judgment in the selection of a
newspaper nearest to the claim for the publication of an applica-
tion. X–655
Publication of notice in paper designated by the register sufficient.
I–570
Each of the three concurrent details in publication of notice must be
equally observed. I–573
The publication is not sufficient if the notice does not appear in every
copy of the paper of each issue for the statutory period. WI-320
Ten insertions required where the notice is published in a weekly
paper. II–710
In the publication of notice figures must not be changed to words
and charged for as thus extended. III–115
Insufficiency of publication, not the fault of applicant, waived in the
absence of adverse rights. I-575
Entry sent to the board of equitable adjudication where a misde-
scription of one of the lines of survey appeared in the published
notice, the error not being the fault of the applicant, or to the
prejudice of the rights of third parties. WI-546
232 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
VII. NOTICE–Continued.
If the published notice is not as explicit in description as the notice
posted on the claim, the defect is the fault of the register, and may
be cured by reference to the board of equitable adjudication.
VIII–457
An error in description (last course and distance, to inclose the tract,
made to run east instead of west), which does not mislead the ad-
verse claimant or defeat any right, will not invalidate the publi-
cation. II–707
Notice of application must be posted in local office during the
whole period of publication. I–572
Posting for sixty days sufficient if the same period is covered by pub-
lication. W–510
The fact of posting forms in part the basis of the application. IX—503
Copy of plat and notice of application must be posted in a conspicu-
ous place on the claim. - VII–554
Posting in open shaft house held sufficient. I–548
Failure to post notice on mill-site portion of claim excused under the
facts. III–386
Failure to post on contiguous mill-site portion of claim excused, and
the entry sent to the board of equitable adjudication. V–513
Where the plat and notice were posted in the limits of the claim as
located, although on ground excluded from the application, it suf.
fices. II–756
Affidavit of posting may be made by a claimant whose knowledge is
derived from personal observation at various times, and from re-
liable information. IX—003
Too late to raise technical objection to the affidavit of posting after
action thereon and allowance of the entry. IX—503
Occasional absence of the witness from the mine does not impair the
value of his testimony as to the fact of posting. IX–53S
Entry may be referred fo the board of equitable adjudication where
the posting, through inaccessibility of the claim, was made on ad-
jacent claim. VII–477
Due compliance with the law and regulations appearing, except in
the matter of furnishing proof of posting, the entry may go to the
board of equitable adjudication after new advertisement, posting,
and proof thereof. WI–717
Proof of posting in the local office should be furnished by the regis.
ter, and in the absence thereof, evidence of such posting may be
submitted by the applicant. VIII–457
VIII. ADVERSE CIAIM.
Adverse proceedings, circular of May 9, 1882. t I–685
The adverse claim must be upon oath of the person or persons making
it; may not be sworn to by an attorney. II–706
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 233
VIII. AIDVERSE CLAIM—Continued.
Alleged delinquent co-tenants must protect their rights as adverse
claimants. I–544
The right of a coöwner should be asserted as an adverse claimant.
- W–93
Tunnel location should be protected by adverse suit as other mining
claims. I–584
Protest or adverse claim should be filed as against an application to
protect rights under a prior town-site patent. IV—555
The adverse claim must be filed within the sixty days of publication;
the rule allowing it to be filed on the day of the tenth publication,
where the newspaper is issued weekly, is rescinded. II–709
Adverse claim must be asserted within the period of publication.
IV—30
Time for filing adverse claim not computed to include period during
which the local Office was closed. I–572
If the last day of publication comes on Sunday, an adverse claim
filed on the succeeding Monday is in time. VIII–430
How the period for filing adverse claims may be affected by the date
of posting. W–510
Failure to adverse within period of publication leaves the plaintiff
in the position of a protestant. º III–422
All adverse claims are held as adjudicated in the applicant's favor if
not asserted within the statutory period and in the manner pro-
vided. IX—563, 572
Failure to adverse within required time (because of alleged failure of
adverse claimants to obtain mineral in their claim) is an admission
that they had no right to the property; they can not be heard sub-
sequently to claim either legal or equitable title to it. II–738
An agricultural claimant who asserts no claim in himself during the
period of publication is not thereafter entitled to an order for a
hearing. X–572
Failure of adverse claimant to institute suit places him in the posi-
tion of a protestant. I–584
Failure of prior locator to file adverse claim is a waiver of his right.
I–591
The subject matter of the controversy having been transferred to a
court of competent jurisdiction, all further proceedings in the land
office affecting the property in dispute are stayed, with the excep-
tion of the publication of notice and making and filing proof there-
of. II–704
Where suit was duly commenced, though a subsequent decision dis-
missing the adverse claim for invalidity has become final, no action
looking to the issue of patent will be taken while the suit is pend.
ing. II–706
234 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
VIII. ADVERSE CLAIM—Continued.
Where an adverse claim is presented in proper form, and the courts
have properly acquired jurisdiction, and there has been no settle-
ment or decision of the suit or waiver of the claim, the General
Land Office will not consider a question which goes to the merits
of the case. II–699
Motion to dismiss an application will not be entertained prior to the
disposition of adverse proceedings duly initiated and pending in
the courts. VI–533; X-270
An entry allowed prior to the final disposition of adverse proceedings
must be canceled where such adverse claim remains undetermined.
VII–83
Entry prematurely allowed pending disposition of adverse litigation
permitted to stand on the withdrawal of the adverse claims.
VII–336
Stay of proceedings warranted on allegation of adverse claim shown
on plat filed. I–538
The stay of proceedings, resulting from adverse claim, removed by
waiver. * Iv–120, 376
A discrepancy between the adverse claim as filed in the local office,
and that upon which suit is instituted, will not warrant the Land
Department in the resumption of proceedings during the pendency
of the suit in court. X—194
Adverse claim, though informal, held sufficient where suit had been
duly brought thereon. f I–603
If the protest shows that an adverse proceeding is pending in the
courts action should be suspended by the local office until final
disposition of such proceeding, though it may have been begun
before the application for patent. VIII–437
Where suit on the adverse claim has been duly instituted, but a sub-
sequent application by the adverse claimant embracing the same
ground has been received and duly adversed by the original appli-
cant and suit thereon commenced, the Land Department has juris-
diction to dismiss from the record the second application. II-704
Where suit on the adverse claim has been duly instituted, but a sub-
sequent application by the adverse claimant embracing the same
ground has been received and duly adversed by the original appli-
cant, and suit thereon commenced, the Land Department will not
dismiss the second application from the record while both or one
of the suits is pending. II–712
Entry should be canceled where the certificate showing non-existence
of suit was recalled. I–539
In the absence of adverse claim it is assumed that the applicant is
entitled to patent, and no agreement of parties can affect this
statutory provision. I–591
Extent and nature of adverse claim may be shown by means best
practicable if survey can not be made. I–582
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 235
VIII. ADVERSE CLAIM—Continued.
Conflicting rights set up to defeat an application can not be recog-
nized in the absence of an alleged surface conflict. WI–318
Waiver of adverse claim effective when filed in the local office with-
out reference to pending judicial proceedings thereon. IV-117, 376
The second applicants not having filed adverse, being misled by the
error of the register in receiving their application, allowed thirty
days to institute suit. III–40
Where application covers several locations, an adverse claimant may
show abandonment of any one of such locations. IV—221
The junior application should be treated as an adverse claim when
the record shows the existence of the senior application. III–40
The adverse claimant may not, before suit commenced, file an appli-
cation for the ground adversely claimed. II–723
An adverse claimant may not, after suit commenced, file an applica-
tion for the ground adversely claimed. II–704
Rights as between adverse claimants must be determined by the
COurtS. I–584
The jurisdiction assumed by the courts, as between adverse claim-
ants, is recognized and continued by the mining laws. I–584
Courts must determine legal rights between town site and mineral
claimants. 2. I–556
Suit must be commenced within thirty days after filing, and if not so
commenced it must be held that no adverse claim exists.
II–707,744
Failure to assert an alleged right in the courts, on due opportunity,
debars its consideration when set up by an assignee who is not an
“ adverse claimant.” IV–271
If an adverse proceeding is pending in the courts when application
for patent is made the adverse claimant need not commence new
action after filing protest. e VIII–437
The judgment of the court does not go beyond the right of posses-
Sion. IV—314
The right to determine questions of possession in the courts necessa-
rily involves all matters incidental thereto. IV–273.
All questions concerning the proper location, and the maintenance
of a prior location by the performance of labor, must be left to the
COurtS. II–749
The question of abandonment of a mine, alleged by the relocators, is
a proper one for the courts, if an adverse claim is filed. II–699
The date of location by an adverse claimant, and the competency of a
corporation under State laws to make such location, are properly
matters for judicial determination. X–194
Dismissal of suit by adverse claimant held a waiver of claim to ground
in conflict, where the lode passed through the prior placer claim.
IV—273
236 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
VIII. ADVERSE CLAIM—Continued.
Proof that suit was not duly commenced must be by certificates of
clerks of proper State and United States courts. II–726
Adverse claimants held to reasonable diligence in protecting their
interestS. I–583
The adverse claimant, after judgment in his favor, must accompany
his application with the official plat and field notes, and with a cer-
tificate to the requisite amount of labor and improvements. II–706
After judgment, the successful claimant must file a certified copy
thereof, with the other evidence required by section 2326, Revised
Statutes; if suit be dismissed, the clerk’s certificate, or a certified
copy of the order of dismissal, must be filed ; in no case will a re-
linquishment or other proof filed in the local office be accepted in
lieu of the foregoing. II–726
After A had filed an application, B made application embracing
part of the ground, and also duly adversed A and commenced
suit; before judgment, which was in his favor, B made mineral
entry; in view of the judgment and of A's acquiesence therein,
the question is between B and the government, and the irregu-
larity in the application and entry will be waived. II–722
Separate patents may issue for such portions of claims as adverse
parties may rightfully possess. I–593
On determination of judicial proceedings patent may issue to the
applicant for such part of the claim as he may appear to rightfully
possess, if a vein or lode has been discovered thereon. VIII–437
The applicant, adversed, may litigate the case, or relinquish the
ground in conflict and take patent for the remainder, or dismiss his
application for patent and rely on his possessory title. II–744
HX. PIROTESTANT. -
Protestant not entitled to appeal. I-584; III–422; V–93
A protestant, who alleges no claim present or prospective, that is
recognized under the law is not entitled to the right of appeal.
VIII–439
A protestant, who claims an adverse interest, is entitled to be heard
on appeal, where he alleges that proper action was not taken to
bring him within the statutory limitation as to the period accorded
for presenting an adverse claim. VIII–122
A protestant has no standing before the Department as a litigant.
II–743, 749
The burden of proof is upon the protestant. III–267
Allegations of protest should receive full consideration. W–29
Protestant can not rely on technicalties. I–578
The withdrawal of a protest will not prevent action on the matter
alleged therein, if it appears that the applicant has not complied
with the law. WI-320
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 237
IX. PROTESTANT—Continued.
The protest of a town site that raises an issue as to the character of
the land embraced within a mineral application presents a proper
subject of inquiry. VII—319
x. DISCOVERY AND EXPENDITURE.
Circular of December 14, 1885, modifying the practice under the
Good Return placer mine decision. IV—374
Consolidated application filed prior to receipt at local office of circu-
lar of June 8, 1883, may be received on proof of improvements of
the value of $500 on each lode claim. II–726
A discovery within the limits of a prior existing and valid location
will not support a location made since May 10, 1872; where there
has been no application for patent by the prior locators, inquiry
into the question need not be made. II–744
Where the discovery on which location was based was made within
a prior location, a subsequent discovery within the ground claimed,
prior to application or adverse right is sufficient, and obviates the
necessity of remarking the boundaries. II–752
There must have been a discovery of mineral within the surface
boundary of the claim prior to the application ; if made within the
claim's limits before an adverse right attaches, though not in the
discovery shaft, it is sufficient. II–741, 749
Where it is necessary to support an entry made, and there is no ad-
verse claim or showing of fraud. if the evidence is conflicting the
discovery of mineral in the discovery shaft will be presumed. II–742
Whether the legislature of Colorado may, in view of the national
statute, lawfully attach to the mining laws a condition requiring a
discovery in the discovery shaft, quatre. II–742
The discovery shaft being excluded, the applicant must show the
existence of mineral on the remainder of the claim. W-703
Positive evidence as to the discovery of the vein or lode must be fur-
nished, showing the place where and the time when such discov-
ery was made, and the general direction of the vein or lode.
- WII–6
Not necessary that discovery of mineral should be shown within the
land added by amelidineiſt, where such iand is reported as mineral
and the good faith of the entry is not questioned. VII–81
Preliminary showing of expenditure necessary to maintain possession
required on application. IV-221, 374
The surveyor-general’s certificate should show what expenditure is
exclusively credited to the claim for which patent is asked, where
expenditures are made for the benefit of several claims. X—198
How proof of annual expenditure should be shown. IV-221, 374
Not allowed on an application wherein the land, on which are situ-
ated the discovery shaft and improvements, is expressly excluded,
and the proof shows no mineral on the claim as entered, or the
requisite expenditure for the benefit thereof. VIII–602; x–53
238 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS,
X. DISCOVERY AND EXPENDITURE-COntinued.
Failure to make the statutory annual expenditure renders the claim
subject to relocation. VII–506
If part of the land is excluded, the proof must show the discovery of
mineral within the new survey and the requisite expenditure on
the claim as thus defined. - IX–83
Additional proof allowed though the discovery and improvements
appeared to be on land excluded from the claim. IV—160
Labor and improvements on land excluded from claim confer no
rights. IV—160
A location, under which the land containing the improvements has
been excluded, will not support an entry under section 2325, Re-
vised Statutes. IX—571
A judicial decision that the claimant is not entitled to any credit for
work done on the claim renders it necessary that the supplement-
ary proof should show the requisite expenditure since the date of
said proceedings. VII–411
Failure of the proof to show the requisite work or expenditure may
be made good by supplemental proof. VIII–516
Though the application cover several locations, proof of $500 ex-
pended on the claim, as applied for, is sufficient. IV-221, 374
Annual expenditure for claims held in common. W-200
Several held in common kept alive by Work done upon One of them.
IV-221
Annual expenditure required on each located placer claim.
IV-223, 374
Work done on a claim with the view of developing adjoining claim
also, is available for both. III–267
The proof should show that the improvements have been made for
the purpose of developing the particular claim applied for. VII–71
In determining the question of expenditure improvements made out-
side the boundaries of the claim may be considered, if made to aid
in the extraction of ore, and not included with the improvements
of another claim. WI–220
Cost of a survey preliminary to the location of a ditch for the devel-
opment of a claim will not be credited on the statutory expendi-
ture where such ditch has not been dug. VII–359
Work done on a road leading to a claim, but outside of the exterior
lines thereof, and made for the joint benefit of several claims, can
not be accepted in proof of the required expenditure. WI–711
Work done on a ditch outside of a placer claim, and prior to the lo-
cation thereof, can not be accepted in proof of the required expend-
iture where the ditch was not made for the development of the
claim. VII–52
A claim as amended is an entirety, and it is not necessary that the
improvements should be upon a particular part thereof. VII–81
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 239
X. DISCOVERY AND EXPENDITURE–Continued.
Where part of the claim included within the application was taken
by assignment after litigation with a successful adverse claimant,
evidence must be furnished showing the necessary expenditure
thereon. III–149
Good faith must appear in the matter of expenditure. WI–220
Certificate as to expenditure upon claim should be filed with applica-
tion or during publication. IV—17
XI. ENTRY.
Entry will be allowed only when the register is satisfied that all proofs
required by the regulations are filed, and that they show a bona
fide compliance with the law and regulations. II–726
Gives the entryman complete equitable title so far as third persons
are concerned, which is not subject to forfeiture under section 2324,
Revised Statues; the validity of an entry depends on the facts
existing when it is made, and not on the entryman's subsequent
acts or omissions. II–770, 771
Sections 2324 and 2325 should be construed together. I–544
Section 2324, Revised Statutes, has reference solely to title by right
of possession, and does not conflict with titles acquired by purchase.
II–771
In the absence of clear showing as to possessory right patent must
be denied. WI–261
The possessory title to a lode claim, held and worked for a period
equal to the time prescribed in the local statute ºf limitations for
mining claims, may, in absence of an adverse claim, be established
in the manner now authorized in placer claims. II–726
Requisite antecedent compliance with law presumed after entry.
I–548
Preliminary proof for patent must show the claim valid at applica-
tion. * V-25
Mineral value of tract claimed to be shown. III–536
The affidavit required of an applicant can not be made by agent or
attorney if the applicant is a resident of and at date of applica-
tion is within the land district. VIII–223
When applicant's affidavit may be made by an agent. IV—374
Defect in, caused by non-compliance with local regulations, cured by
the formal annulment of said regulations prior to the allowance of
the entry. X—173
Mineral entry not invalid because at the time made the land was cov-
ered by a homestead entry where the latter was subsequently can-
celed. - I–565
The occupancy of land by town-site settlers is no bar to its entry
under the mining laws if the land is mineral and belongs to the
government. WII–411
240 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
XI. ENTRY-Continued.
Where entry is erroneously canceled, the land is not subjected to
appropriation by a stranger to the record who had located it while
the entry was subsisting. II–769
Non-compliance with paragraph 5, cirqular of December 14, 1885, may
be waived if the proof is in conformity with prior regulations.
VIII–516
Only an applicant or his assignee may make entry under section
2325, Revised Statutes, or have his name inserted in the certificate
of entry; this regulation does not apply to proceedings under sec-
tion 2326, Revised Statutes. II–725
In the absence of an adverse claim, the entry may be suspended and
new proof made where that submitted was found insufficient.
- VII-359, 411
Preliminary proofs accepted, though patent must issue for claim as
diminished by adverse placer. I–551
Supplemental proof permissible, after due notice to the State, where
the status of the tract under the school grant had not been authori-
tatively determined prior to the entry. VII–54
Cancellation of mineral entry does not affect possessory rights. I–526
Error in the issuance of the final certificate may be corrected.
VII–415
Entry should not be canceled on the report of special agent.
II–788; V1-231
XII. LODE.
The form of a lode location need not necessarily be that of a parallel-
ogram ; the formation of the mineral deposit must govern. III–11
Claimant for alleged known lode should apply for patent, though such
lode is included in placer patent issued to another. IV—494
To exclude a lode or vein from a placer claim it must appear that a
valuable deposit exists in vein or lode formation, and was so
known to exist prior to, Or at the date of, the placer application.
X–156
Lode within placer claim, not known at application, passes with pa-
tent of placer. I–549
Lode claim within placer restricted to 25 feet on each side of the lode
on failure to properly protect the full extent of the claim by ad-
verse proceedings. I–551
Lode within a placer claim limited in width only when patent is asked
for such lode, and the claimant has no application therefor, per-
fected by another, prior to the date of the placer application.
X–200
Lode claim within placer restricted to 25 feet on either side thereof.
III–388
The 25 feet referred to in section 2333, Revised Statutes, is to be
measured from the center of the lode. III–388
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 241
XII. LODE—Continued.
An out-standing placer patent issued on a record that shows the ab-
sence of a known lode within the placer claim is a bar to any sub-
sequent application for a lode claim within said placer. X–200
The applicant is entitled to enter for all that part of the ground not
affected by the judgment; where the judgment is for but part of
the ground adversely claimed, entry may not be made until it be-
comes final; judgment for all the ground adversely claimed may
be treated as final judgment. II–750
Waiver of a portion of lode claim, including original discovery shaft,
does not affect rights of possession and development as to the re-
mainder. I–593
XIII, PLACER.
Area of placer, expenditure; circular of December 9, 1882. I–694
Patent for placer; circular of September 22, 1882. I–685
On surveyed land, must conform to the legal subdivisions as nearly
as reasonably practicable. II–76 ſ : VI-227
Examination of a placer claim and report thereon by a deputy min-
eral surveyor, at the expense of the claimant, should not be re-
Quired where the claim is upon surveyed land and in conformity
with legal subdivisions. VII–390
Plat and field notes of survey may be required in case of a claim on
surveyed land when necessary to accurately designate the tract.
WI–580
Fire-clay, or kaolin, properly the subject of placer location. I–565
A tract containing “a valuable deposit of mineral paint rock in
place” is not subject to entry as a placer claim. VII–66
Placer claim for “brick clay ” not permissible. WI–761
Land chiefly valuable for its salt deposits can not be taken as a placer
mine. VII–549
Entry of lands containing borax, soda, alum, etc., in California, Ne-
vada, Arizona, Utah, and Wyoming may be made under regula-
lations of October 31, 1881; whether same ruling should apply to
oil, quare. II–708
Water right can not be obtained under the guise of a placer claim.
III–536
A vein or lode known to exist at date of placer application, and not
included therein, must be excluded from the entry. IX—26
All known lodes at date of placer application are excepted from pa-
tent issued thereon, together with 25 feet on each side of said lodes.
I–577
If the record shows a lode claim within a placer, not owned by the
placer applicant, said lode in its full extent should be excluded
from the placer patent. X—20ſ?
The formal location of a lode claim is not necessary to exclude the
lode from a placer patent. IX—26
10464—16
242 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
XIII. PLACER—Continued.
Hearing may be ordered to ascertain whether a vein or lode was
known to exist at the date of placer application. IX—29
The validity of a placer patent, and its extent, as in conflict with an
alleged known lode, are questions for judicial determination.
X–200
XIV. MILL SITE.
Mill sites provided for and recognized by section 2337, Revised Stat-
uteS. I–557
Mill-site location made the same as mineral claim. I–557
Non-mineral character of land claimed as a mill site must be shown.
VIII–195
A qualified corporation may obtain title to a mill site. X–194
Under the first class of mill sites there must be a lode or vein shown
in connection there with. I–557
Quartz mills and reduction works the only improvements on which
a mill-site entry may be made under the last clause of section 2337,
Revised Statutes. IX—460
Land can not be taken as a mill site if not used or occupied for min-
ing or milling purposes. V-190; VII–415; VIII–195; Ix–201
A mill site can not be included within an application for a lode,
unless such site is used for mining or milling purposes in connec-
tion with said lode. X–196
Land not improved or occupied for mining or milling purposes may
not be appropriated as a mill site for the purpose of securing the
use of the water thereon. WI–706
Land not used or occupied for mining or milling purposes can not be
taken under section 2337 for the purpose of Securing the timber
thereon. VII–557
The appropriation and use of water on land claimed as a mill site is
not the use and occupation of the land that justifies a mill site
entry. IX—201
Both a water-right and mill-site claim may be located on the same
tract of land. W–190
Survey of a mill site need not be connected with a mineral monu-
ment or corner of the public surveys if connection is shown with
the lode claimed in conjunction there with. VIII–195
If the applicant for a mill site is the owner of a lode, and the mill
site is located in connection there with, patent can issue without a
showing of $500 expenditure on the mill site. VIII–19.5
Mill-site claim must be protected by adverse proceedings in case of
conflicting application. I-555
Location on non-mineral land, not contiguous to lode, protected from
subsequent town-site appropriation. IV—212
In an application and entry for lode, may embrace one or more pieces
of ground within the limits of five acres. II–755
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 243
Minnesota. (See States and Territories ; Swamp Land.)
Mission Claim.
A religious Society took, under act of August 14, 1848, only the land
then actually occupied as a mission, and which was with reasona-
ble clearness set forth by specific boundaries, together with all the
improvements thereon, the amount in no case to exceed 640 acres.
II–452
Where a church building was erected without a surrounding inclo-
sure the occupancy was limited to land covered by the building.
II–452
Missouri Home Guard. (See Homestead, subtitle Soldiers’ Addi-
tional.)
Montana. (See School Land ; States and Territories.)
Mortgage. (See Alienation.)
Mortgagee. (See Practice, subtitle Notice.)
Naturalization. (See Alien.)
Rights of citizenship acquired through taking the requisite oath, not
through the certificate of admission. IV-111
Of the father, during the minority of the son, inures to the benefit of
the latter and makes him a citizen. IX—297
Through the father's act during the son's minority requires the latter's
residence, at such time, to be within the United States. I–66
Of the father inures to the benefit of the minor under section 2172,
Revised Statutes. X—445
Declaration of deceased husband or father is the declaration of the
widow or children; the citizenship of the husband or father is the
citizenship of the wife or children. II–611
Declaration by the father during the minority of the son does not
confer citizenship upon the Son. IV-116
A declaration of intention by the entryman, who dies before being
fully naturalized, is equivalent to a declaration by his widow or
minor children. - II–195
A declaration of intention filed by the father inures, if he dies prior
to becoming a citizen, to the benefit of his minor son, who may
avail himself thereof by taking the final oaths. VIII–60, 289
An honorable discharge from the U. S. Army is equivalent to a dec-
laration of intention. II–195
May be shown by copies of original papers where final proof is made
before an officer of a court of record. IW-210
244 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
Naturalization—Continued.
An alien immigrating during his minority and remaining until after
his majority must file a declaration, under section 2165, Revised
Statutes, or comply with the requirements of section 2167, Revised
Statutes, before being qualified for entry. II–195
The statement of a settler as to the time when he filed his declaration
of intention to become a citizen accepted in the absence of record
evidence. VIII–520
Certification of, should be received only when made under the hand
and seal of the clerk of the court in which the record appears,
unless such record is lost or destroyed, when, upon proof of that
fact, secondary evidence may be received. X—625
County courts of Colorado are authorized to admit an alien to citizen-
ship. IV–107, 342
In the matter of, in Ohio the probate court may be presumed to have
a clerk. I–83
Record of court without clerk not received as evidence of I-61
General statutes of, are not applicable to Indians. I-491
Relates back, in the absence of an adverse claim, to the date of set-
tlement. IV–565; VII–229; X-475
On proof of naturalization the presumption is raised that every pre-
requisite to the judgment of the court was duly shown, and that
the declaration of intention was filed at least two years prior
thereto. VI-756
Evidence as to filing declaration of intention, furnished with home-
stead proof, may be accepted in subsequent prečmption proof.
VIII–233
Notary Public.
Attestation of, when authorized, imports the same verity as the
attestation of a clerk of a court of record. W–(526
Certificate showing official character of, should be made by the clerk
of the court where the appointment is recorded, or the officer in
charge of the records containing such appointment. W–62
Notice. (See Practice.)
Obiter Dicta.
A ruling by the Department on a question not involved in the case
under consideration will be treated as mere dictum and not conclu-
sive. VIII–188; x–186
Where the decision was that “no subsequent amendment, except for
error or mistake, can operate to defeat a right previously initiated,”
and the case raised no question of error or mistake, it is obiter dic-
twºm. II–578
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 245
Offering. (See Mineral Land, subtitle Alabama; Private Entry ; Pub-
lic Sale.
Whether the lands have been included within, should appear of record
in every case transmitted to the Department on appeal. X–684
“Offered” lands certified to a State under a railroad grant and cer-
tified back to the government by the State are taken by the gov.
ernment free of the offered condition that existed at the time of
their certification to the State. WI–451
Withdrawal of “offered” land in aid of a railroad grant abrogates
the original offering, and on the revocation of the withdrawal the
lands are restored to the public domain free of their previous offered
condition. WI–451
Officers. (See Land Department.)
Are presumed to discharge their duties properly. 1–223; V-514
Ministerial powers must be exercised within the limitation of the
Statute. IV—155
Where an individual in the prosecution of a right does everything
which the law requires him to do and fails to attain his right by
the misconduct or neglect of a public officer, the law will protect
him. II–166
Rights of parties not impaired through negligence of. II–849;
III–42; IV-466, 515; V-233,646; VI-147; IX-18, 32,78, 102; x–210,
415, 421, 673. .#
No rights in a valid contest will be lost through the neglect of the
local officers to perform their duties correctly. III–42, 190, 281, 569
Failure of local, to make due record will not jeopardize the claimant's
right. I–81
Failure of the local officers to properly note an entry on the record
and issue certificate will not affect the rights of the entryman.
III–172
Action taken under the advice of, should be without prejudice, unless
required by the absolute demands of the law. I–151, 459
No loss should be sustained by the claimant through imisinformation
furnished by the officers of the government or its records. III—t:8
Failure of contestant (timber culture) to file motion for reconsidera-
tion for five months after the limitation, by reason of the neglect
of the local officers to complete the record, does not prejudice his
rights, though an adverse claim has intervened. II–246
Where one intended to include a contiguous lot in his application
(homestead), and did not because informed by the local officers
that a preemption contest barred it, his rights are not prejudiced;
amendment allowed in absence of adverse right. II–36
246 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
Officers—Continued.
Where contest was brought and tried, and contestant went on the
land and improved it, but no decision was made for five years
because of loss of the papers, his rights are not prejudiced ; on
parol evidence of the facts originally proved, in the absence of a
record of them, a subsequent contest is dismissed, and his entry is
allowed. II–299
Failure of local officers to give notice of a preferred right of entry
does not prejudice the contestant. II–323
Failure to make final proof occasioned by the misleading advice of
district officers not allowed to defeat the claim. III–257
The practice of the officers of the land office does not impair the real
and just rights of claimants. II–849
A statutory right can not be enlarged through erroneous action of
the local officers. III–46, 254; IV—188, 424; V–351, 403; VI—237
The acts of an officer de facto are valid in so far as they affect the
rights of the public or of third persons; if one is a mere intruder
or usurper, third persons can acquire no rights by his acts. I-150,
545; II–615; III–549
Official acts of a deputy clerk, appointed for the sole purpose of
taking land proofs, are void. (See 3 L. D., 549.) III–220
The United States can not be estopped by the frauds, not to say the
crimes, of public officials. II–797
Integrity of, not guaranteed by the government. II–46; IV-424
Acts of, not always conclusive as against the government.
IV–424; VII–220
Oklahoma. (See Townsite.)
Circular regulations with respect to opening the public lands to entry,
and President’s proclamation. VIII–336
Circular regulations in the matter of locating townsites in. X-604, 666
© Osage Land. (See Filing ; Final Proof; Indian Lands.)
Patent. (See Mining Claim, subtitles Lode and Placer.)
I. GENERALLY.
II. EFFECT OF.
III. REISSUE.
IV. CERTIFICATION.
V. VACATION.
I. GENERALLY.
Delivery of; instructions of October 25, 1882. I-638
Right to, having vested is equivalent to issue of. W–38
Can only issue only on specific authority. I–5, 11
Issued in contravention of the record is void and will not be deliv-
ered. & IW-498
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 247
I. GENER ALLY –Continued.
Matters pertaining to execution and delivery of, to be determined in
the General Land Office. IV—375
The Secretary of the Interior no authority to direct the delivery of
an incomplete. I–22
Will not be delivered while the right of possession is in dispute;
though if essential in pending litigation it may be delivered in
trust for the party legally entitled thereto. I–287
Delivery of, issued on military bounty land warrant to be governed
by the rule in United States v. Schurz. I–1
To a fictitious person, procured by fraud, carries no title and vests
no interest in anyone; it is null and void. II–794; V–477
To issue in the name of minor orphan children of the deceased en-
tryman under the homestead law. V-222
Requirements in case of issue to minor heirs. I–99
In the name of a deceased person conveys no title. IX—402
Where homestead entry was made by a guardian for the benefit of
the orphan child of a deceased soldier, patent must issue to the
beneficiary, whether of age or not. II–II4
Must issue to the entryman (prečmptor) and not to his grantee.
II–779, 783
For confirmed private claim in Florida issues to the assignee of the
confirmee on production of regular chain of title. V-677
Upon application by the administrator of a deceased owner (mine)
should issue to the heirs of such deceased owner. II–762
The right to patent (mineral) is not traced beyond the entryman
(deceased), and issuing in his name inures to the benefit of him
whose right may afterwards appear. II–772
Where alien donation claimant died after declaring his intentions
and before naturalization, patent properly issues to his heirs.
- II–439
Authorized by section 2447, Revised Statutes, only in claims con- .
firmed by statute and where the act made no provision for patent.
WI–149
Title not passed by an instrument purporting to be a, where such in-
strument is neither sealed nor delivered. IX—407
Date of, must be taken as the date of the record, and parol testi-
mony to contradict such record is not admissible. X–343
Boundary description in, not always conclusive as to identity of tract.
Af W–96
Certificate and official survey form a part of. V–96
On entry should contain reservation of acquired railroad right of
way and station grounds. IV-523
Hearing ordered in case of undelivered, there being a variance be-
tween the application and certificate. IV—422
The Land Department is prohibited from issuing to a prečmptor
patent on a void entry. II–779
248 DIGI.S.T OF LAND DECISIONS.
I GENERALLY –Continued.
Is not necessary to pass title in cases of present grant. II– 102
Is not necessary to pass title when patent is not required by the
granting act, and certification has been made. II–457, 492
Was not necessary to pass title when the lands had been selected
under a present grant (to Missouri), and entered at the local office.
II–488, 496
Mineral, should only contain terms of conveyance and recitals show-
ing compliance with the law. v–195, 256
For mineral land should not contain a clause reserving the rights of
a town site. v–195, 256; VII–283, 319; VIII–602
Not accepted by a mineral claimant, because containing a clause re-
serving the rights of a town site, may be recalled with the view of
instituting proceedings to determine the relative rights of the
parties. VII–319
Discovery and location antedating town settlement, the reserving
clause will not be inserted in a mineral patent. IV-273
If there has been a failure to comply with the essential provisions of
the law (mining), patent must not issue. II–741, 743
Issue of, for mining claim conclusive as to all facts upon the exist-
ence of which such issue depends. V–28
In private claim should follow the terms of the grant or judgment.
I–287; v–61
For private claim may not issue under section 2447, Revised Statutes.
I–223
For a town site is inoperative as to all lands known at the time of
the entry to be valuable for mineral, or discovered to be of such
character prior to the occupation or improvement of land under
the town site laws. VII–283
In town site and mineral, mutual clauses of reservation may be in-
serted. I–556
For lands in the Virginia military district, Ohio, may only issue
where the entry is made prior to January 1, 1852, and such lands
had not been surveyed prior to the passage of Said act. I–4, 11, 17
II. EFFECT OF.
The title of the United States passes with the patent, and with the
title passes all authority or control of the Land Department over
the land and over the title which the patent Conveys.
I–592; II–114, 657; Iv–173, 253, 344, 396; V–483;
v1–314; VIII–70, 471; IX—83, 597; X-694
Title by patent is title by record; the delivery of the instrument is not
necessary to pass title. I–18, 22, 90; II–386; IV-345, 500; VIII–70
The case of the United States v. Schurz cited and distinguished.
IW-499
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 249
II. EFFECT OF–Continued.
Issuance of, duly signed, sealed, countersigned, and recorded deprives
the Department of further jurisdiction over the land or the title
thereto. X–343
Issuance of, deprives the Department of jurisdiction over the land
included therein, even though such patent by its terms amounts
only to a quitclaim deed. X—155
Can be invalidated only by judicial proceedings. IX–83
The issuance.of, prima facie passes title, whether valid, or a void in-
strument without authority, and precludes the exercise of further
departmental jurisdiction over the land until vacated by judicial
action. IX-114
After patent or certification, where patent is not expressly required,
the Department can not annul such action or dispose of the land.
Ix–597,636
The issuance of, for lands that were prior thereto part of the public
domain, is within the general scope of the authority of the officers
of the Land Department, though in particular instances their
action may be unwarranted. - IX-114
Issued within the jurisdiction of the Land Department may be void-
able, but is not absolutely void. III–90
Issue of, though inadvertent, deprives the Department of jurisdiction
over the title. I–457
Inadvertently issued, and neither delivered nor accepted, does not
pass legal title to the land, or take it out of the category of public
lands. IX—322
Though fraudulently obtained, segregates the land. II–116; W-477
Relates back to the initiatory act of the claimant who has duly fol-
lowed up his rights, and cuts off all intervening claims.
1–492; 11–167, 497, 770; IV-117; V-39
For private claim exhausts the jurisdiction of the Land Department.
I–229
On private claim in California does not affect the rights of third par-
ties. W–503
Issued to a purchaser from California (section 1, act of July 23, 1866),
prevents the State's claim under the Swamp grant. 11—643
Precludes departmental action under the first section of the act of
April 21, 1876. IV—344; V–145, 205
Erroneously issued for land in excess of the amount actually pur-
chased is no bar to the issuance of Second to another for such ex-
CéSS. W–96
III. HEISSUE.
Issued to correct mistake on surrender of the former, where it fails
to properly describe the land. V-105
Should be surrendered for reissue to cover larger amount. W–336
250 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
III. REISSUE-Continued.
May be recalled by the Department, with the consent of the grantee,
when not issued in conformity with the judgment and not accepted
by the grantee, and another issued in accordance with said judg-
ment. VII–283
Where second was accepted, all objections not then asserted were
held to be waived and delivery of the first refused. III–146
On a reconveyance by the State of lands erroneously certified thereto
new title may be made under the proper law. - X–165
An amended patent may issue, without recall of that outstanding,
where part of the claim is by a clerical error omitted from former
certificate and patent. II–428
Where a patentee mistakenly made and placed on record a deed to
the United States he may be relieved by indorsement thereon of
the Commissioner's refusal to accept it, or by reissue, with recitals
of facts, etc. . II–674
IV. CERTIFICATION. (See School Land.)
If patent is not expressly required by law, legal title passes fully by
certification. Iv–206, 301; VI—543; VIII–24, 471; Ix–636
All jurisdiction of the Department over lands terminates on certifi-
cation. VI—543
Though erroneously made, deprives the Department of further juris-
diction over the land. IV—137
W. VACATION. *
Proceedings to vacate will not be advised, except on due showing.
IX–83
To determine whether suit to vacate should be advised, a hearing
may be ordered. IX–83
Where one attacks a patent for fraud with the purpose of entering
the land on vacation thereof, he should make a full prima facie
showing at the hearing, if ordered, at his own expense; if the
other party desires to rebut, he may do it at his own expense.
II–761
Suit to vacate will not be advised on the report of a special agent
when not based on his personal knowledge, unless corroborated
by the evidence of at least two witnesses. VI—454
Suit to vacate, will not be advised in the absence of an equitable ad.
verse right. WI–322
Suit to vacate not advised if the applicant therefor has an adequate
remedy of his own. Iv–366; V-141
Suit to set aside not advised, the government having no interest in
the land. IV—366, 373, 557
Not attacked by the government at the request of one who desires to
enter the land. IV-396
DIGEST OF LAND LOECISIONS. 251
V. VACATION.—Continued.
Suit to vacate not advised on the request of one who has himself
not complied with the law. IW–320
Suit to vacate a void, advised to prevent a public wrong. IV—416
Suit to vacate advised, if it appears the final proof was false and
fraudulent. WI–393
Suit to vacate, on the ground that it was procured through fraud,
will not be advised where the evidence is not convincing and the
land is in the hands of a purchaser without notice. X—449
Suit to vacate, obtained by fraudulent proof, will not be advised if
the land is held by a transferee, in the absence of evidence that
such transferee had knowledge of the character of the proof.
VI-395
Where patent is issued on false and fraudulent evidence so introduced
as necessarily to affect the judgment of Land Department officials,
suit to vacate should be instituted, if innocent purchasers have
not acquired possession of the property. - II–760
Suit to set aside, not advised where the land had been sold by the
patentee, though under later rulings the patent would not have
issued. I–377
Questions involving the rights of alleged innocent purchasers left to
the Department of Justice in advising suit to set aside patent.
IV—573
Proceedings to vacate, will not be advised where title passed under a
full knowledge of all the facts and has remained undisturbed for
a long term of years, and is now held by purchasers in good faith.
VIII–165
Suit to vacate advised for the protection of third parties who are
otherwise without remedy. V–28
Issued through mistake for lands reserved may be canceled on suit
of the United States. IW–321
Suit to vacate will not be recommended upon allegations already con-
sidered, and where the Secretary decided the questions involved
after full opportunity for adverse interests to be heard, unless upon
specific showing of fraud. II–759
The finding of facts on which it issues not to be assailed collaterally.
W–194
Or certification, where patent is not expressly required, can not be
vacated or limited in collateral proceedings. IX—597
Issued for private claim will not be attacked by the government on
the ground that the grant was fraudulent and confirmed through
fraud. IV—566
Suit to vacate, issued to the Central Pacific, advised, where the land
was covered by prečmption claim at date of withdrawal on general
route and definite location. º X—466
For mining claim will not be assailed by the government on the alle-
gation that local regulations were disregarded. W–131
S
252 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
V. V ACATION.—Continued.
May be canceled for the same causes that would authorize the cancel-
lation of a certificate. III–28
The rule that the injured party on discovering the fraud must give
prompt notice of his intention to rescind the deed (patent) is not
applicable to the government, to which laches are not imputable.
II–795
Application to enter patented land confers no right upon the appli-
cant to question the validity of the patent by which title passed.
.* VIII–24
Applicant for land covered by, should initiate his claim by proceed-
ings against the patent. IX-114
Resting on conclusive adjudication not disturbed. W–185
Fayment. (See Accounts; Costs; Fees.)
Public land sold is to be paid for in cash; checks, postal orders,
and drafts are not receivable in payment; foreign gold coins, as
legally valued, and national-bank notes are receivable ; scrip of
Various kinds, as provided by law, is receivable in lieu of cash.
II–658
A check is not a legal payment of fees (timber culture). II–320
Receiver's duplicate receipt is merely prima-facie proof of payment.
- II–48
Military bounty-land warrants may not be received in payment of
prečmptions. JI–673
For the purpose of making payment for preemption and commuted
homestead entries, supreme court scrip is money. II–599
On the purchase of public land, must be made, when the final proof
is submitted. III–188,298; V-220, 221; v1–107
Failure to make, at time of submitting final proof, will not defeat an
entry allowed under regulations which recognized such practice.
VI-107; Ix–615
Tender of, so far as the rights of the claimant are concerned, is equiv-
alent to actual payment. W–38
To the receiver, before the local office is ready to act on the applica-
tion, makes the receiver the applicant's agent, and if the applica-
tion is rejected, the applicant must look to the receiver for the re-
turn of the money. WI–713
Where money was left on deposit with a former receiver on account
of a mining claim, but was not accounted for or covered into the
Treasury, his successor in office is not chargeable, nor may it be
credited on the entry on account of which it was deposited. II–673
Certificates of deposit for the survey of a private land claim can not
be used in payment of lands homesteaded or prečmpted. II–463
Of land office fees, which is prerequisite to a preferred right of entry,
will be presumed (on appeal) where the contrary does not appear.
II–323
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 253
Payment—Continued.
Purchase money paid the receiver on declaratory statement for Osage
Indian lands is a mere deposit; if proof had been accepted, it
would have been received as a first payment on the land; as the
filing was canceled and the money has not been accounted for (or)
covered into the Treasury, the case is between the depositor and
the receiver. II–672
Deposits for the purchase of public lands should be made with the
receiver, or the assistant treasurer with whom the receiver de-
posits, in the purchaser's name, to the credit of the Treasurer of
the United States “on account of sales of public lands.” II–659
Where deceased entryman paid the commutation price of the land
and the receiver never accounted for it, the heirs must again pay
said price. II–46
Where the excess payment in homestead entry would be less than
one dollar, none is required. II–200.
Plat. (See Survey.)
Practice. (See Contest : Evidence ; Judgment ; Jurisdiction; Res Jw-
ancata.)
I. GENERALLY.
II. RULES OF.
III. AMENDMENT.
IV. APPEAL.
V. CONTINUANCE.
VI. COSTS.
VII. HEARING.
VIII. INTERVENOR.
IX. NOTICE.
X. PROCEEDINGS BY THE GOVERNMENT.
XI. PROTESTANT.
YII. REHEARING.
YIII. REVIEW.
I. GENERALLY.
Before local offices not affected by State procedure. IV—346
The Secretary will not advise as to the disposition of a case pending
before the Commissioner. IV—309
Hypothetical questions not considered by the Department. IV—310,
389, 393, 451; V-258; Ix–194
Record entry of order should not be obliterated on the vacation of
the order. IV—385, 554
Oral arguments in ea parte proceedings before the Department not
III–561; VI-265
encouraged.
254 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
I. GENERALLY –Continued.
Oral hearing not allowed without notice to all parties. IV—320
To hear a case orally is within the discretion of the Department.
III–595
If a case is ready for consideration under the rules of, it may be ad-
vanced on the docket without notice to either party. V–675
The advancement of cases is discretionary with the Commissioner.
w IX—530
Briefs containing scurrilous and impertinent matter will be stricken
from the files. IX—130
Papers presented for filing, but refused by the local office on account
of press of business, should be held as filed of the date when pre-
sented. X–139
Local officers may, with the approval of the Commissioner, designate
certain hours of each day in which papers may be filed in their
Office. VII–504
Failure to file a motion in time not cured by notice thereof served
within the proper period. W–262
Motion to dismiss a contest before the local office not required to be
in writing. IV—207
Right of defendant to rely on order of dismissal. W–212
Where a motion to dismiss has been sustained the entry should not
thereafter be canceled on the evidence already submitted without
affording the entryman further opportunity to furnish testimony.
VIII–395
Motion to dismiss for want of sufficient evidence treated as one for
non-suit. WI–6S2
Dismissal of suit on lefendant’s motion obviates the submission of
testimony on his part while such judgment stands.
IV-275, 355, 412; VI-364, 682, 758
The local office, in the exercise of a sound discretion may dismiss a
contest for want of diligence in prosecution, but the refusal to
make such order, on the motion of a stranger to the record, is not
an abuse of Such discretion. X-91
Stipulation indefinitely postponing a contest, followed by a delay for
years to prosecute the same, must be treated as an abandonment
thereof. VI—823
Default in appearance after due notice conclusive. I-465, 475
Failure of the contestant to appear on the day to which the case was
continued justifies the dismissal thereof. VIII–395
Rights of adverse claimant lost through failure to assert the same at
the proper time. III–588
Disposition of the record in cases dismissed by the local office for
want of prosecution. Circular of January 3, 1890. X–2
Mutual concessions to obviate litigation encouraged. W–119
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 255)
I. GENERALLY –Continued.
In case of decision rendered without jurisdiction the irregularity may
be corrected by Summary proceeding. W–613
Though motion for substitution of parties is denied the applicant
may be allowed the right to be heard in the event of further action
taken on the case. III–111
Irregularity in proceedings not considered in the absence of objec-
tion. W–454
Irregularity waived by consent to the proceedings. I–474
All questions as to preference rights of settlers must be raised in and
decided by the local office. W–659
After decision by the local officers they can take no action involving
the disposition of the land until instructed by the Commissioner.
VIII–559
After decision the local office should transmit the record, and there-
after take no action affecting the disposition of the land until fur-
ther advised. VI—234; VIII–121
After decision in a case the local officers are without jurisdiction to
enter an order of dismissal on their own motion. X–678
A decision of the Commissioner Sustaining a motion to dismiss an
appeal is interlocutory, and does not affirm the decision of the
local office or obviate the necessity of a final decision on the merits.
& IX—633
Ex parte case returned to Commissioner, where additional evidence
was filed, pending appeal from his decision. IW–446
Decisions should not be rendered piecemeal. VIII–612
When an application to file, and one to contest, are pending on
appeal of the same person, both questions should be disposed of
by the Commissioner's decision. III–69
Where the rights of several parties are involved in a case the claims
of each should be disposed of in the decision of the General Land
Office. - VIII-279
To avoid delay the Department may determine a case on its merits,
if the record is complete and the parties in court, though the ques-
tions presented were not passed upon below. VII–25; VIII-595 ;
IX—436; X-142
In a case before the Secretary, where there are pending before the
Commissioner several other appeals involving the right to the same
tract, the entire controversy may be disposed of, in order to avoid
the evils of a multiplicity of suits. * II–59
In the trial of a contest case the local officers may, after due notice,
personally inspect the land involved. VI-626; VIII–38
Local officers not authorized to view the land involved, after the case
is closed, and base their judgment on Such inspection. WI–626
An inspection of the land made by the register without notice and
after the case was closed is not the proper basis for a final decision,
but may warrant an order for rehearing. VIII–38
256 IDIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
I. GENERALLY-Continued.
On questions of fact, the Department will not generally disturb con-
curring decisions of the local and general land office where the
evidence is conflicting. VIII-440; Ix–299, 302, 491
Attorney in good standing, prior to filing appearance, but as prelim-
inary thereto, is entitled to inspect the record and all papers on
which action has been taken. V-400
A stranger to the record may not inspect the papers in a case except
as attorney. II—222
Cases not referred to the Attorney-General except where the Secre.
tary is in doubt as to the correct conclusion. V–277
Instructions as to the disposition of pending cases on the removal of
'ocal office. VII–527
II. RULES OF.
See Table of Rules cited and construed, page 65.
Rules adopted August 13, 1885. IV—35
Rule 56 amended. X-680
Rule 70 amended. IV—234
Rule 81 amended. IV–2S5
Rule 108 amended. IV—336
Rule 114 amended. IV–495; v1–796
Rule 114 construed. IV—314
Rules of, intended to be in harmony with general regulations and
circular instructions. W–671
Are made to aid in the jnst and equitable disposition of the public
lands, and may not hinder and delay such disposition. II–258
Departmental regulations in conformity with statutory authority
have all the force and effect of law. II–709; iv.–84;
VI-111; Ix–89, 189,284, 353
Until a rule is changed it has all the force of law, and acts done
under it while it is in force must be regarded as legal. I–165,
416; III–214; V–112, 169, 292, 624
Rules of, should be followed, and exceptions to such course only per-
mitted to prevent grievous wrong or correct a palpable error.
V–23, 111, 236; Ix—360
Rules and regulations do not abridge statutory rights. II–58,
232, 282; v-429
It is in the power of a court to suspend its own rules, or to except a
particular case from their operation, whenever the purposes of jus-
tice require it. II–7:20
The waiver of a rule of practice by the Commissioner is within his
discretion, subject to revision by the Department. III–321
Local officers, no authority to suspend rules of. WI–238
Rules of, govern contest between town lot claimants. I–502
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 257
II. RULES OF–Continued.
The supervisory authority of the Secretary will not be exercised in
disregard of the rules of practice where they provide an adequate
course of action and are not in conflict with the law. W-111, 236
None of the rules of practice deprive the Department of its super-
visory powers. III–44; VIII-2, 423
III. AMENDMENT. (See Application ; Entry; Filing.)
The liberal policy of the several States in respect to amendments in
judicial proceedings will be recognized and adopted by the Land
Department, in so far as the amendment does not affect rights.
II–39
Granted where the record furnishes matter to amend by. IV—538
Allowed where the rights of the parties are not prejudiced thereby.
IV—538
May be allowed where the charge is defective. x–181, 407
Where affidavit (against timber-culture entry) is executed prema-
turely, but filed at the proper time, it may be amended. II–249
Motion for review may be amended if no party in interest is injured
thereby. VIII–248
Allowed on the day set for hearing if the charge is found defective.
- v–211; v1–268
Complaint may be amended after due notice, and evidence submitted
ther eunder. WI–791
May be allowed on suggestion of defendant's death. X—261
The right to amend defective pleadings is lost by failure to appeal,
and can not be set up in a new contest after the interest of another
has intervened. III–58
When containing new matter, and filed after the case has closed,
must be treated as new contest and held for disposition of pending
suit. WI–234
Of contest affidavit can not be permitted in the presence of an inter.
vening adverse right. VIII–446; IX—18; x–105
In the place of, after judgment a new contest is allowed. Iv–299
A motion to dismiss for informalities in the affidavit should be granted,
or amendment allowed. II–217, 220
That it was not filed within the time allowed is an objection that can
not be raised after trial. X-405
IV. APPEAL.
Rules relative to, analogous to practice in the courts. I–472
Is the proper method of invoking the supervisory authority of the
Secretary. W–613
In an appealable case is a waiver of pending motions. V-438; VI—218
Rules of practice with respect to, must be followed in case of hearing
ordered under mineral circular of October 31, 1881. W–671
10464—17
258 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
IV. APPEAL–Continued.
Withdrawal of an appeal leaves the decision final. II–395
Estops the appellant from denying the full jurisdiction of the appel-
late tribunal, even though the adverse parties are themselves
chargeable with laches. II-29; III–562, 608
Right of, should not be denied before it is sought to be exercised.
- IV–53
Having been sustained as to order of procedure, the case should be
remanded. - W–370
Not allowed on the unverified statement of attorney that notice of
decision was not received as shown by the record. WI–775
Right of, not lost through failure of local officers to give notice of
adverse decision. W–233
Not defeated by a mistake in the appellant's name if the subject-mat-
ter is otherwise clearly identified. IX—545
Local office may not dismiss on the ground of its defective character.
W–368
Motion to dismiss should be passed upon When the case is reached in
Order. W–479
Motion to dismiss on the ground of Want of authority on the part of
appellant's attorney must fail, if in response thereto said attorney
shows due authority. IX—525
Will not be dismissed on the ground that appellant's attorney has
been disbarred, where there is no official record of such action.
- IX—520
Will not be dismissed on the motion of a former attorney of the ap-
pellant, who at the date of the motion had ceased to represent the
appellant. VIII–192
Filed by attorney, who has not furnished authority as required in cir-
cular of July 31, 1885, should not be dismissed without notice
under Rule 82. IV—569
Objection to the sufficiency of, will not be considered if raised for the
first time On review. VII–470
Walidity of affidavit accompanying application to enter not to be
raised for the first time on appeal, or upon the motion of a stranger
to the record. III–547
Objections resting on appellant's allegation, and not of record in the
proceedings before the local office, but raised for the first time on
appeal to the Department, will not be considered. WI–654
In the absence of, from dismissal of contest, before the submission of
evidence, the entry should not be canceled without further hearing.
IV—354
Matters pending before the Commissioner for his decision will not be
considered on appeal to the Department. IV-284
In an appeal to the Secretary, questions properly requiring primary
action by the Commissioner will not be considered. II–650
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. , 259
IV. APPEAL–Continued.
On appeal or review the Department can only consider rights put in
issue by the contest and founded upon a live application. III–104
Unperfected, is no bar to a hearing on the subsequent application of
the appellant. VIII–544
Of contestant taken prior to the death of the entryman confers juris-
diction upon the Commissioner. WI–779
After notice of, the death of the appellee will not defeat the jurisdic-
tion of the Department to proceed with the case. VII–500
A party to an appeal is a party to the case until it is closed by exe-
cution of the decree and may call attention to the manner in which
it is executed. II–523, 595
Want of, excused in the absence of written notice of decision. Iv–73
Failure to, is a waiver of any claim to precedence under previous
proceedings. III–180; V-263; Ix–569
Rights lost through failure to, can not be set up after the interven-
tion of an adverse claim. III–105, 473; IV—187, 414, 532
Failure to take, from an order of dismissal made without jurisdiction,
will not affect the rights of a contestant. X–678
Failure to, not excused ou the plea of Want of notice when the record
shows notice to the attorney. W–248
From Local Office.
Rules regulating, from the General Land Office not applicable to
cases before local office. I–472
Papers to be retained in local office for thirty days after notice of
decision, and report then made whether appeal has been taken.
II–205; III–38; IV—203
From the local office, not requisite to the jurisdiction of the Com-
missioner. I–455
During the pendency of, no action should be taken in the local office
affecting the disposal of the land until instructed by the Commis-
sioner. IV-215, 242, 395; V-227; VII–140; Ix–59, 281, 299, 326,578
During the pendency of, from action of the local office, it has no
jurisdiction over the case or land involved therein. VIII–559
its decision rejecting the testimony of one of the parties. VI-440
Pendency of, precludes the allowance of an entry for the land in-
volved. II-270; X-15
Dismissal of contest by the local officers, while the case is pending
on appeal, is error. II–245
The publication of notices of right of appeal in contested cases be-
fore local officers discontinued. III–99
Notice as to right of, must be given under rule 66 when an applica-
tion to file or enter is rejected. W-377
260 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
IV. APPEAL–Continued.
From Local Office—Continued.
In the absence of, a decision of the local office, not within the excep-
tions to Rule 48, becomes final, and should not be reversed by the
General Land Office. 1–467; V–585; VIII–30
In the absence of, the decision of the local office is final as to the
facts, unless the case is within one of the exceptions to Rule 48,
though a different conclusion might have been reached had appeal
been taken. VII–98
Failure to appeal from the local officers' decision renders their action
final as to the facts, so far as the parties are concerned, subject to
certain exceptions, but the General Land Office is not thereby pre-
cluded from passing on the evidence when the interests of the
government require such action. VII–20
In the absence of, the Commissioner may decide a case on its merits,
where there were disagreeing decisions of the local officers.
IX— 13S
A decision of the local office that the proof offered does not sustain
the charge is a finding that becomes final as to the contestant in
the absence of. WI-359
In the absence of, from the decision of the local office dismissing a
contest, the case should be considered as between the claimant
and the government. VI—350, 427
The second exception to Rule 48 is only applicable as to rights be.
tween the claimant and the government. , W–624
In the absence of, the Commissioner should, under the second excep-
tion to Rule 48, reverse a decision of the local office rendered con-
trary to law. WI–391
Failure to, under Rule 48 may be conclusive as against parties, but
does not preclude examination of the case by the General Land
Office. V-245, 603, 624
Whether taken or not from the decision of the local office, the Com-
missioner should determine matters of law involved. v–625
In the absence of, the Commissioner of the General Land Office
should examine into the merits of the case where the decision of
the local office is against the government. VI–98, 250
Unless case falls within Rule 47 (rules of 1880) the Commissioner
should not, in the absence of appeal, disturb the decision of the
local office. III–184
Case confirmed under Rule 47 (rules of 1880) not considered on ap-
peal except for jurisdictional cause. IV—571
In the absence of, the refusal of the contestee to answer proper ques-
tions on cross examination is such an irregularity as to warrant
the General Land Office in a reëxamination of the case under Rule
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 261
IV. APPEAL–Continued.
From Local Office—Continued. .
Though not filed in time, the case under Rules 48 and 49 may be re-
, viewed. V–212
Failure to appeal from decision of local office defeats the right of ap-
peal from the Commissioner's decision affirming the action below.
V—624; VI–804; VII–358
Rule 48 should be construed with Rule 81 as amended. V—624
Failure to appeal from decision of local office held to be a waiver of
claim. III–184
Right of, from Commissioner lost through failure to appeal below
when the case was properly disposed of under Rule 47 (rules of
1880). - IV-277
Failure of the contestant to take, from a decision of the local office
dismissing his contest, will not preclude a subsequent assertion of
his right thereunder, if the record does not affirmatively show due
notice of such action. VIII–595
Failure of the State to appeal from a decision of the local office, on
a question under the swamp grant, will not defeat its right to ap-
peal from the Commissioner's decision therein. VIII–64
From the General Land Office.
Estops the appellant from denying the jurisdiction of the Depart-
ment. II–29; III–562, 608
The jurisdiction of the Commissioner over a case ceases on appeal
from his final decision. III–111;
v–205, 224,438, 504; v1–108, 315; 1x-165
The filing of, does not operate to remove a case from the Commis-
sioner's jurisdiction in cases where he holds that the right of appeal
does not exist. X–572
Is not received as such, in cases where the Commissioner holds that
the right of appeal does not exist. g X—572
Should not be dismissed by General Land Office if received without
objection. W–205
Sufficiency of, from the General Land Office to be determined by the
Department. V—251
Oil appeal to the Secretary, cases involving the same principle, but
concerning different parties and tracts, should be transmitted sepa-
rately. II–29, 215; III–166, 349, 445; x–472
In the transmission of, to the Department the record should show
whether the land is “ offered " or “unoffered.” X-684
Papers were properly not transmitted on, where the case had been
considered by the Department on review. IV-227
From the Commissioner's action in rejecting an application to con-
test an entry must be perfected under Rule 86. VII–423
262 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
IV. APPEAL–Continued.
From the General Land Office—Continued.
Applications for extending the time for perfecting an appeal from the
General Land Office should be addressed to that office, within the
time for appeal, with the reasons assigned duly verified by oath.
III–59
Neither the local officers nor surveyors-general may fix the time for
an appeal from the decision of the General Land Office, nor extend
the time fixed by the rules. III–59
By Whom.
Party recognized by notice of decision entitled to be heard on appeal.
IV—53
Appeal by a party not in interest will be dismissed. II–362
Right allowed to parties shown to be in interest and affected by the
decision, I-579
Mortgagee or purchaser after entry entitled to be heard, on disclo-
sure of interest. Iv–544, 570; VI-771
Of intervenor requires a disclosure of interest. X-111
Of a stranger to the record should be disposed of under Rule 82, if the
appellant fails to show his right to be heard as an intervenor.
VII–454; Ix–482
The unsworn statement of a stranger to the record is not sufficient to
show right of. VII–480
Taken in the name of the heirs of the entryman is defective in the
absence of proof showing the death of the entryman, the names of
the heirs, and the parties taking said appeal. * IX—249
Right of, should be accorded to the heirs of a deceased prečmptor
from a decision awarding the land to an adverse claimant.
VIII-405
Where two parties are adversely affected by a decision the appeal of
one will not preclude motion for review by the other, nor will the
denial of the motion affect the appeal. W–410
When Allowed.
Right of, exists where the decision of the Land Office amounts to a
final determination on the merits of the case. IV—570; VI-124
Will lie from decision of the General Land Office upon the merits
of a case, though irregularly considered. IV—430
A decision finally disposing of a question though not of the case in
which it is raised, is not interlocutory, and is therefore subject to
appeal. II–374
Not allowed from discretionary action of the Commissioner.
IV-162, 269
Will not lie from an interlocutory order of the Commissioner.
II–40, 580; IV–94; VII-404; IX—360, 633
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 263
IV. APPEAL–Continued.
When Allowed—Continued.
Will not lie from an interlocutory order of the local office. IX—252
Will not lie from an order of the Commissioner directing a hearing.
II–40; III–325, 530; VI-124; VIII-372, 444; IX—217
Will not lie from a decision of the Commissioner refusing to order a
hearing unless such refusal amounts to the denial of a right.
III–516, 562; V-23; WI–124; IX—377; X—572
Will lie from decision holding the evidence insufficient to warrant
cancellation and directing new hearing. W–58
A decision that amounts to the determination of a substantial right
is not interlocutory and appeal will lie therefrom. X-111
Will not lie from the Commissioner's requirements of an additional
affidavit in support of an entry; only from final action on the case
on the failure of the entryman to comply with said requirement.
v–429; VII–67, 480; VIII–73; X-110
Lies from a decision which in effect is a rejection of final proof.
V–421; VI-605
Will not lie from the refusal of the Commissioner to review a decision.
v–99, 410; x–159
Should be from the original decision, and not from the refusal to re-
consider such decision. IX—388
Should be allowed from a decision canceling an entry on a special
agent's report, when the facts as shown therein are not denied.
VIII–306
Re-instatement of contest having been denied by the local office, the
right thereto may be tested on appeal. IV—513
Will not lie from the response of the Commissioner to a letter of in-
Quiry. WI–772
Allowed in lieu of certiorari where the appeal was wrongfully denied.
- IV–52, 333
Will not lie from a letter of the Commissioner promulgating a de-
partmental decision. IX–93
Will not lie from the refusal of the Commissioner to take up a case
before reached in the regular order of business. e IX—530
The acceptance of a mineral application filed upon a homestead entry,
against rules, impairs the entry and justifies appeal. II–713
A return of an application with explanation that the deposit for fees
and commissions is insufficient, which is not denied, is not a deci-
sion justifying an appeal II–279
Appeal will lie from the decision of the local office on the sufficiency
of residence under the act of August 11, 1876. III–367
Where the law directs the surveyor-general to report in relation to
private claims to Congress, appeal to the Land Department will
not lie. f. II–413
Does not lie from action of board of equitable adjudication. I—411
264 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
IV. APPEAL–Continued.
When Allowed—Continued.
Not the proper means of presenting new questions. VIII–294
A decision of the General Land Office that a railroad company has
no claim to certain land, does not preclude its right of appeal from
Such action. IV–52
Time,
Right of, runs from date of notice of decision. IV–244, 279
Seventy days allowed for filing, when notice of the Commissioner's
decision is given through the mails by the local office. I–110;
V–475, 479
Ten additional days allowed for, when notice of the decision is given
through the mails by the local office. II–714; VIII–46; IX—438
Ten days additional allowed for, when notice of local officer's decision
is sent through the mail. I–117, 118; VII–387
From the General Land Office will not be entertained if not filed
within the time required. Iv–331; Ix–291, 360
In computing the time allowed for, the period between the filing of a
motion for review and the notice of decision thereon is excluded.
III–539; VIII–421
In the absence of, within time allowed, the Commissioner's decision
becomes final. WI–6
Must be dismissed on motion of appellee, if not filed in time. WI-240
Rule limiting the time allowed for, will in contest cases be strictly
enforced. IX—668
Where taken after the time allowed, acknowledgment of service by
opposing counsel does not cure the defect or waive right to have
the appeal dismissed. WI–800
Failure to file in time not excused on the ground of want of notice
if in fact the attorney of appellant had such notice. IX—170
The General Land Office may reject if not filed in time. V–205
Failure to appeal in time from the action of the local office does not
cut off right to appeal from the Commissioner's decision. III–606
Will not be dismissed on the ground that it was not taken in time, if
the record fails to show when notice of the decision was received.
III–73; IX—455
An appeal not filed in time may be considered where the interests of
the government are involved, or where justice is facilitated and
promoted. II–714, 720
Allowed where date of notice is in doubt, and the default in filing,
if any, but one day. I–110
Failure to appeal in time because of temporary closing of local office
is excusable. II–211
Time waived on account of diligence shown by the appellant. I–103
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 265
IV. APPEAL–Continued.
Time—Continued.
Where notice of Commissioner's decision is served on attorneys in
Washington, and by the local officers on the party or his local at-
torney (in Colorado), time will begin to run from date of the latter
service. (See 11 L. D., 439.) I–464; II-374
If laches is not imputable to decedent for failure to appeal in time, it
is not imputable to his privy in estate (assignee) not notified. II–769
Where an appeal is tardily asserted, if it involves rights which seem
to demand consideration, the case will be considered. II–598
Must be taken within the prescribed time by a transferee who has
notice of a decision adverse to the entryman. VIII–485; X-111
Filed by transferee before notice of decision was served on entryman,
is in time. - W–598
Specification Of Errors.
From Commissioner's decision must contain specification of errors.
I–109
Should set forth briefly and clearly specific exceptions to the decision
complained of. IV—343; Ix–370
An allegation that the decision is “contrary to the evidence” is not
such a specification as will entitle the appellant to be heard on ap-
peal. IV—343
An allegation that the decision is “contrary to law and the practice
of the Land Department” is not a sufficient specification. W–158
An allegation that “the Commissioner erred in dismissing the con-
test,” and that “the Commissioner erred in sustaining the decision
of the local office,” is not sufficient. IX—560
Will be dismissed in the absence of specifications of error.
gº IV-551; v–158; V1–315; x–111
Rules 88 and 90, of practice with respect to, are mandatory and must
be construed together. V–111
Right of, defeated by failure to file specification of error within the
proper time. V–111, 251
Will be dismissed if notice thereof, and copy of specifications of error
are not duly served upon the opposite party. IX—264, 276; X–546
Not defeated by failure to file specifications of error within the re-
Quired time, where such failure was caused by the appellant's ina-
bility to secure a copy of the decision. VIII–192
Will not be dismissed for the want of sufficient specifications of error
if the errors alleged can be fairly ascertained therefrom. IX—11
Assignment of error on refusal of the Secretary to reverse the Com-
missioner in certiorari proceedings is meaningless, no issue having
been made before the Department. II–743
Notice Of.
Without notice of, to the opposite party in interest will not be en-
tertained by the Department. I-109; V-169; Ix–188; x–408, 595
266 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
IV. APPEAL–Continued.
Notice Of-Continued.
Notice and grounds of appeal must be filed within the time required
in the rules of practice. III–134
Copy of notice of appeal need not be served on the appellee, When
the appeal is from a decision of the local office (Rules of 1880).
II–612
Notice to opposite party of, not required in case before the local
office (Rules of 1880). I–472
Notice of, from the local office should be duly served upon the ap-
pellee. IX—252
Notice of, and specifications of errors may be filed at different dates.
- W–251
The words “I desire to appeal,” with assignment of grounds and
promise to file argument, is a sufficient notice of appeal (private
claim). II–391
Defective.
Appellant entitled to notice of defective. V-251
Bule 82 is only to prevent the transmittal of an appeal the Commis-
sioner considers defective. W–99
Whether defective under Rule 82 or incomplete under Rules 88 and
90, it must be sent to the Department for its action. VI—315
Rule 82, not applicable in cases where the Commissioner holds that
the right of appeal does not exist. X–572
The Department is not concluded by the failure of the Commissioner
to act under Rule 82. V–99
That the appellant is not notified, under Rule 82, of his default in
omitting proof of service until too late to make the service, can not
affect his status or the rights of appellee. * X-595
From Commissioner if defective will be dismissed by the Depart-
ment. - - IV—343
Waiver.
Waiver of appeal bars right to begin a new contest on same grounds.
III–397
Waived by the initiation of another contest. IV—382; V–350
Pending, not waived by the initiation of second contest on new
ground. W–451
Right of appeal not lost by motion for review. III–539
Waived by subsequent application for repayment. W–409; Ix–643
Abandoned by an application to purchase the land. VII–342
Waived by new application to enter the land. IX—29
Not lost through fraudulent waiver by attorney. IV—332
Withdrawal of, by authorized attorney, conclusive. IV-267
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 267
V. CONTINUANCE.
Instructions of December 27, 1882, concerning. W–142
Can not be effected by the mere agreement of the parties. IV—234
Motion for, is addressed to the sound discretion of the local office.
V–647; WI–165, 345, 440; VII–61
Abuse of discretion on application for, will be reviewed on appeal.
W–647
Affidavit for, can be made before the day of hearing. I–106
Affidavit for, held good though made prior to the day of hearing and
before an officer other than the register or receiver. W–142
Regularity of, can not be questioned by the party who procured it.
IX—255
Order for, should be properly noted of record. III–588
Not granted without proper showing of diligence. III–581; V-273
Affidavit for, based on the ground of absent witnesses, should show
that such absence is not the fault of the applicant, and what efforts
have been made to procure the attendance of said witnesses.
WII–63
On the ground of absent counsel or witness should be denied if dili-
gence is not shown. VII–497
Can not be demanded as matter of right on the ground that the ap-
plicant's attorney is engaged in a trial in another court. IX—523.
Application for, that depositions of witnesses who refuse to attend
may be procured, is in time if made on the day of trial. VIII–197
May be granted to take depositious, though a hearing has been held
under Rule 35. X-480.
Not granted, after admission as to the evidence of absent witnesses,
under Rule 22. - IV—385.
1May be granted to adverse claimant in case of protest against final
proof. W–211
May be allowed in case of surprise on due showing. I–105
Where a continuance is granted by a notary public, it should not
extend beyond the time set for the examination of testimony at
the local office. II—233
Agreement of counsel to an indefinite postponement of the hearing
works a discontinuance of the case. X–459.
To be ordered in pending cases on removal of local office. WII–527
VI. COSTS.
To be paid by contestant who seeks a preference right under the act
of May 14, 1880. III–51; WI–763
To be paid by contestant, though the evidence is taken before a ste-
nographer, on agreement. IV—207
The plaintiff having rested his case on the admitted testimony of his
absent witnesses, and paid the costs to that point of the case, is
not excused from paying the costs of taking the testimony of de-
fendant's witnesses. III–51
268 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
VI. COSTS-Continued.
Equally apportioned in case of hearing ordered to ascertain in whom
the right of entry exists. III–449
Where hearing is ordered on allegations of fraud against an existing
patent, by one who purposes entering the land, each of the parties
should pay the expenses of introducing his own testimony. II–761
Under Rule 57 (Rules of 1889), the contestee is not required to pay
the expense of cross-examining the contestant’s witnesses. VI–660
In contests under Rule 55, each party must pay for taking the testi-
mony of his own witnesses, both on direct and cross-examination.
X—625
On cross-examination taxed to the party making the same in contest
and protest cases. III–333
Costs of transcribing cross-examination charged to the party making
the Same. III–194
Of cross-examination of contestant's witnesses are to be paid by the
defendant. II–85
Of frivolous or vexatious cross-examination of witnesses are to be
paid by the party introducing it. II–196, 232
Protracted hearings and vexatious accumulation of costs are within
the control of the local office. III–194
Each party to pay his own, in contest upon final proof. III–247
IExtraordinary expenses are to be paid by the party in whose inter-
est they are incurred. II–196
Contestants required to deposit for a reasonable estimate of prelimi.
nary costs, and additional deposits may be required if found nec-
essary. III–194
The local officers may require a deposit to cover the cost of taking
testimony in a contest. VI—599; VIII–493
Requiring the claimant to make a deposit to pay for the cross-exam-
ination of the government witnesses is presumptively a proper ex-
ercise of discretionary authority. IX—131
Contestants should only be required to deposit a reasonable sum as
security for the cost of transcribing testimony. II–196
Money deposited for costs is to be retained until contest is finally dis-
posed of, when the unexpended balance is then to be returned.
II–218
On the defendant's failure to cross-examine witnesses at the proper
time the recall of said witnesses should be at his expense. V–647
The “land-office fees” referred to in section 2 of the act of May 14,
1880, are the costs of contest. IV-19
VII. HEARING. (See Attorney, and subtitle herein, No. x.
The matter of ordering, discretionary with the Commissioner.
VIII–444; Ix–288, 379
Discretion of Commissioner in ordering, not controlled except a clear
abuse thereof is shown. VIII–444; IX—217, 584; x–250
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 269
VII. HEARING—Continued.
The ordering of hearings is within the Commissioner's discretion, and
may not be the subject of an appeal. II–40, 581
Authority of the Commissioner to order a new, not affected by an
erroneous ruling of the local office. VII–433
Commissioner may, in the exercise of a sound discretion, order second,
on proceedings by the government. WI–39
May be ordered by Commissioner at any time prior to patent where
information is required for the proper disposition of the case.
WI–174
Authority of local office to order, fixed by Rule 5. I–481
Rule of Practice 5 applies to hearings between homestead claimants
and between preemption and homestead claimants. II–224
Local officers have no authority to order, in a case involving a final
entry. * X–694
May be ordered on the affidavit of the attorney. I–480
Local officers may order, on protest against final proof. I–86, 448;
VII–483
Should not be accorded one who fails to appear and protest against
final proof. - W–210
The local office may order a hearing to test the validity of an entry.
III–310
May be ordered by the local office to determine the right of a home-
stead applicant as against a railroad grant. X–281
Ordered on charge of fraud and doubt as to the correctness of the
record. IV—265
Should not be ordered on a general charge of fraud. IX—545
Should not be had pending disposition of an appeal arising under a
previous contest. W–227
To ascertain facts where the case came up on ea parte evidence.
IV—168
Will not be ordered on an unverified statement to determine a ques-
tion of priority alleged in the face of an adverse record. VIII–294
Not accorded mortgagee of entry except it be shown that the former
proceedings were irregular. W–385
Should be ordered to settle alleged priorities as between adverse
claimants. VI—509,643, 766
Should be ordered when filing is offered for land covered by the
entry of another and prior settlement right alleged.
V–526; v1–330; VIII–528
Will not be ordered as between an agricultural and mineral claim-
ant where the former asserts no right in himself during the period
of publication, and the refusal of such an order is not the denial
of a right. X–572
Further hearing should be ordered in case of new issues arising on
the trial that were not included in the original charge. I-113
270 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
VII. HEARING—Continued.
On a general order to an entryman to show cause why his entry
should not be canceled and the application of another allowed, he
may set up any charge affecting the invalidity of the adverse claim.
X-250
If neither party appears at day set for, the case should be dismissed.
- I–112
Failure to submit testimony on due opportunity offered in the regu-
lar course of proceeding cuts off right to be further heard. V–446
Under swamp land circular of December 13, 1886. V-279
Order dismissing hearing not interlocutory. - IV—473
Hearings before the local officers must be held at the local office, and
no testimony may legally be taken by either of them elsewhere
without specific instructions from the Land Department. II–204
Notice of the time as well as of the place of both original and ad-
journed hearings should be given. r II–227
Where the hour of the day to which a hearing is adjourned has not
been fixed, the parties have the whole of the day in which to ap-
pear. II–226
Hearings must be fixed at the earliest date practicable, and before
officers who will attend to them promptly. III–121.
When the hour for hearing or final proof is not named in the notice,
appearance on the day is sufficient. III–334
Local office may not cite contestants before other officers. I–474
VIII. INTERVENOR.
A stranger to the record not entitled to be heard as an intervenor
without first disclosing his interest under oath. III–134, 278;
V–603; VII–454, 480; VIII–578
General statement of the attorney, under oath, that the intervenor is
the present owner of the land, not accepted under rule 102. IX—628
A motion made by a stranger to the record to dismiss the pending
proceeding will not be entertained, except by way of intervention,
when the case comes up for final action. IX—613
A stranger to the record can not plead “former practice.” III–301
IX. NOTICE.
Circular instructions with respect to the registration of letters con-
taining notice of hearings and decisions. III–140; V-204; VI-12
Rules of 1878 regulating service same as those of 1881. I–108
Rules with respect to proof of, must be strictly followed. I–106
Of contest, must be issued by the local office, but the service thereof
rests with the contestant. II–230, x–268
May not be signed by a clerk; must be signed by one or both of the
local Officers. II–228
Should show the time as well as the place set for the hearing. II–227
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 271
IX. NOTICE–Continued.
That does not set forth the grounds of contest is defective and does
not authorize proceedings thereunder. g X—593
Misnomer in notice a fatal defect. III–418
Slight error in spelling of defendant's name will not defeat. VII–441
If not addressed to the appellee in his true name, and it does not
appear that he received the same, the Department acquires no
jurisdiction. IX-168
Of contest, properly served, with correct description of the land, the
charge against the entry, the contestant's name, and the time and
place for the hearing, is not fatally defective because of a misnomer
of the defendant therein, as the process is amendable in that
respect either before or after judgment. VII–61
Question of, is jurisdictional, and if raised at any time, or apparent
on the face of the record, the Department is bound to take cogni-
Zance thereof. Ix–75, 561
Jurisdiction not acquired in the absence of proper service. IV-397,
425, 440, 537; VI–234, 335; Ix–75, 168
Ec parte proceedings without, will not warrant an order of cancella-
tion. IX—522
Where there is no service of notice, and no waiver by contestee, all
subsequent proceedings are wholly without effect. II–220
Proceedings may be dismissed for want of, though the entry is can-
celed on the admissions of the claimant. I–107
Must be shown affirmatively of record to confer jurisdiction. V–398,
611; VIII–578
In the absence of legal, actual knowledge does not put a party upon
defense. - Iv–378; v-213, 253
Personal service must be had when possible. I-107; V-253, 457
Must be by personal service, under Rule 10. IV-440, 537
In personal service, delivery of a “copy” only is required, and such
copy may be printed or written, or partly printed and partly
written. WI–669
That the original, instead of a copy, was left with defendant is no valid
objection to the service. V–590
Personal service may be secured through registered letter. (See 11
L. D., 604.) W–254
Service of, by registered letter is personal service as required by Rule
15. (See 11 L. D., 604.) X—388
Service of, by registered letter on non-resident held good where such
notice was received more than thirty days before hearing. (See
11 L. D., 604.) V–213; IX—131
When the service is admitted, or undisputed, it is not material that
the affidavit as to service should show the “place” thereof. VI-669
If the fact of service is not denied, and such service is duly made, the
manner in which proof thereof is made is not material. X-273
272 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
IX. NOTICE–Continued.
Of a motion to set aside, proof of service should be given the opposite
party. - VII–274
Service by a party in interest is permissible under Rule 10. VI-552
Of contest must be served in accordance with the departmental rules
and not under the civil procedure of the State. X–477
Regularity of, as shown by the record, will be presumed. IV—570
Sufficient, where through continuances service preceded the hearing
sixty days. W–41
New, to the defendant not required, where an objection to the charge
is sustained and leave to amend allowed. X–405
Issuance of new, without due showing of diligence and inability to
serve the first is irregular, but does not defeat service thereunder.
IX–68
Where a contest has been dismissed for illegal inception, notice must
issue and trial be had in a new contest, though record in former
contest sustains the allegations. II–286
Want of, to the defendant may not be pleaded by a stranger to the
record. IV-127
Where testimony is to be taken under Rule 35, as amended, the notice
must state the date of taking the testimony and the date of hear-
ing at the local office. II–23.5
Thirty days sufficient under Rule 35, though an earlier date is fixed
therein for taking evidence. IV—540
Intervening entryman is entitled to notice of any action that neces-
sitates cancellation of his entry. X—302
To the plaintiff's attorney of the day fixed for hearing is notice to the
plaintiff. VII–252
Notice of a defect to an agent through whom an application is filed
is notice to the principal. II–279
Rights lost through want of diligence in giving notice of contest.
IV—491
Should be given before considering motion to dismiss. IV–48!)
Motion to dismiss will not be entertained in the absence of notice to
the opposite party. - IX—619
Of an attorney's act imputed to the party he represents. V–439
Proceedings on a case reopened should not be without due notice to
all parties. W–212
To be given in pending cases on removal of local office. VII–527
To Indian claimant should be given through the Indian agent, and
where practicable to the Indian personally. III–449
By Publication.
The essentials of service by publication defined. IV–84,
230; V-213, 611
In publication of, rules 13 and 14 must be strictly followed. IX-606
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 273
IX. NOTICE–Continued.
By Publication—Continued.
Publication not allowed except on showing of diligence to procure
personal service. - IV–84, 536
Service by publication should be set aside when it appears that by
ordinary diligence personal service could have been obtained.
IV—536
Notice by publication can be given only where personal service can
not be had. II–203
On affidavit by the contestant that he can not obtain personal serv-
ice, the local officers may authorize him to give notice by publi-
cation; he must furnish evidence of the publication, post a copy of
the notice on the land, and prove such posting by affidavit; if they
know no address to which a copy of the notice can be mailed, their
report should so state. II–230
Order for publication should not be made if the affidavit therefor
does not show what effort has been made to secure personal Serv-
ice. 1–85, 107, 299; IV-229; VI-335, 669; Ix–75, 168, 606
Publication of, without the affidavit required as the basis for such
form of service, confers no jurisdiction. V–456;
v1–669; vi.1–49; VIII–452
Affidavit as the basis for publication is sufficient which sets forth
that affiant lives in the vicinity of the land, is well acquainted
there, knows that the defendant does not there reside, and that
after diligent search he is unable to find said defendant. VII-274
An allegation that “the present residence of A is to me unknown "
is not a sufficient basis for notice by publication. II–50, 63, 288
Allegation that the address of claimant is unknown will not warrant,
publication of notice. r III–249, 418, 518
An allegation that personal service can not be made within the State
is not essential as the basis of publication. W–635.
An affidavit that sets forth conclusions, and not facts, is fatally de-
fective as a basis for notice by publication. WI–669
Subsequent affidavit will not cure defect in allegations made as basis
for publication of notice. WI–669
The showing required to authorize publication must be made before
issuance of the order therefor. V1–669; vii.1–452; Ix–218
Though the required affidavit is the basis of publication, its absence
is not necessarily fatal; the proceedings, so far as irregular, may
be set aside, and be resumed from the point of departure. II–286
Where notice by publication is insufficient (for want of proper affi-
davit), and personal service was not made thirty days before hear-
ing, proceedings based on them are void. II–288
Where the superior standing before the Land Department acquired
by the applicant is to be attacked, the contestant must strictly ob-
serve the regulations (time, posting, and mailing). II–766
10464—18
274 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
IX. NOTICE–Continued.
By Publication—Continued.
In service of, by publication the day of the first insertion in the
newspaper may be computed as forming a part of the required
period. X–620
Publication of, once a week, for four consecutive weeks, an essential
in Service by publication. III–529; IX-131
In service by publication sending a copy by registered letter and
posting are essentials. - III–326; IX–75
In service of, by publication a copy must be mailed by registered let-
ter to the last known address of the defendant. I–107;
IV—378; VI-269; vi.11-558; X-664
The entryman's address, as given in his application to enter, may be
properly accepted by the local office as the post-office address of
the claimant in transmitting notice of contest by registered mail.
IX-135
An allegation that the post-office address of the claimant is unknown,
does not excuse failure to mail notice to the last known address of
such claimant. X–666
It is the publication, and not the registered letter required by Rule
14, that constitutes legal notice; but such letter must have been
mailed thirty days before the date of hearing. II–229
Of contest by publication includes posting on the land, and jurisdic-
tion is not acquired without. I–107 ; V–611; VIII-578; IX-131, 561
In service of, by publication, posting in the local office, and mailing
notice by registered letter are essentials without which jurisdiction
is not acquired. - VI–408
Misstatement as to date of posting will not defeat the service where
the error is corrected by special affidavit and testimony of the con-
teStant. - VIII–46
A non-resident will not be heard to say that due diligence was not
used to Secure personal Service. V–456
Want of actual, may not be alleged if there was proper service by
publication. W–635
Where publication of uotice was irregular, the technical objection to
it will not be heard when the record shows that the alleged aban-
donment existed. II–63
Heirs, Minors, and Insane.
Notice must be served on all heirs, and not on the administrator and
one of them only. II–227
To an heir, who is also an administrator of the deceased entryman,
may be regarded as notice to such party in both capacities.
VII–267
Diligence to ascertain the names and last known address of the heirs
or legal representatives of deceased timber-culture entryman
required. VIII–452
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 275
IX. NOTICE–Continued.
Heirs, Minors, and Insane—Continued.
Of timber-culture contest should be served upon the heirs or legal
representatives of deceased entrymen. VIII–452
Should be given the sole devisee of a deceased timber-culture entry-
man in attacking the entry. VIII–452
Service upon an alleged guardian will not confer jurisdiction over a
minor, if the fact of guardianship is not established. IX—218
Where contestee is insane, notice may not be served on him, nor on
the superintendent of an asylum where he is confined. II–230
Of a contest against the entry of an insane person must be served in
accordance with the statutory regulations of the State or Territory.
X-238
To Transferee.
Transferee of record entitled to notice of hearing. v–170, 953
Transferee not of record not entitled to, on the adverse disposition
of the entry man's appeal. v–276, 589
Transferee of an entry entitled to notice of hearing. V–22, 170, 253
Assignee who has filed in local office statement showing interest in
pending entry is entitled to. V–603, Ix–561, 576
Of proceedings against an entry should be given a transferee who has
filed in the local office a disclosure of his interest. VIII–641; x–566
Mortgagee may not plead want of, unless it is shown that the exist-
ence of the mortgage was made known to the local office in time
for service. IX—131
A transferee who has not filed in the local office a statement of his
interest can not plead want of. X—446
Transferee can not plead want of, if he has not filed in the local office
a statement showing his interest in the entry. IX—561
Failure to give, to a transferee who has filed a disclosure of his in-
terest will not authorize reinstatement of an entry in the absence
of reversible error in the judgment of cancellation. X–566
Transferee entitled to, under proceedings by special agent where the
county records show the transfer. IX—576
Local officers under no obligation to search the county records to as:
certain whether there is a trausferee before issuing. IX—576
One known to the contestant and local office as an actual party in
interest is entitled to. IX—480
Objection as to that given the entryman can not be heard from a
transferee who was duly notified. VIII–46
Transferee who is duly served with, and is represented at the trial,
can not be heard to object that the heirs of the deceased entryman
were not properly served. VIII–197
Purchaser before patent not entitled to notice of contest proceedings.
I–106
Effect of Appearance.
General appearance, without objection to service, waives defects
therein. I–116; IV—378; VI-269, 335; Ix–643
276 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS,
IX. NOTICE–Continued.
Effect of Appearance—Continued.
Any defect in the service or proof of service is waived by the defend-
ant appearing and procuring a continuance. - X—273
Insufficiency of, may not be alleged by one who has secured a con-
tinuance of the case to a day certain. VIII–524
Special appearance for the purpose of objecting to the service of,
does not waive the errors in said service. IX—131
Right to legal, not waived by proceeding to trial after objection.
IV—378, 440, 537
Participation of counsel in the examination of witnesses, after motion
to dismiss is overruled, does not affect the force of his objections to
the Service. IX—131
Where notice is defective, the defendant may waive the informality,
and does so if he proceeds to trial; but he is entitled to the full
period of notice, and may demand a continuance if he has not
had it. II–203
Of Decision.
Of decisions should be formal and in writing. I–477; Iv–73, 591
Circular directions with respect to notice of decisions. III–140;
V–204; v1–12
In the absence of, decision does not become final. I–366; VII–42
Of decision must be shown affirmatively to cut off right of appeal.
VI-108, 123
Of a decision will not be presumed, it must affirmatively appear of
record. X-678
To losing party, of adverse decision should include a copy thereof.
W–233
To the attorney of adverse decision sufficient. III–248; V-248; Ix–170
Of decision to one of several attorneys representing the party is suf.
ficient. I–119
Of decision presumed from relation of attorney to the various parties,
IV-194
Of decision to attorney who acted in the initiation of the contest, but
not at the hearing, is sufficient. III–183
Admissions of claimant and counsel as to notice of decision con
clusive. WI–12:
Of a decision to which the attorney of a party is entitled is not sus
ceptible of service by publication. WI–33;
Of decision when given to both the party and his attorney througl
the local office dates from service on the party. (See 11 L. D., 439.
I-464; II–37.
Of decision, shown of record, not impeached by unverified statemen
of attorney. WI–77;
Of decision, mailed from General Land Office on date of signature.
WI–14
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. - 277
IX. NOTICE–Continued.
Of Decision—Continued. -
Relation of attorney and client with respect to notice from the De-
partment considered. III–409
In the absence of proof it will be presumed that notice sent by mail
from the General Land Office to non-residents was received, at the
expiration of fifteen days from date of mailing. WI–140
Written admission of receipt of, in case of decision, is proof of serv-
ice. WI–108.
Of Cancellation.
Of cancellation, given through the mails, should be in strict Con-
formity with rules 17 and 18. IX—490
Of the cancellation of an entry to the contestant's attorney, is notice
to the contestant. III–409; Ix–70, 478; x–324
Of cancellation to the successful contestant not sufficient when given
by unregistered letter. VII-335
Of cancellation, to a successful contestant, sent by unregistered
letter is not sufficient. VIII–477
Of cancellation to an attorney, erroneously entered of record, is not
notice to the contestant. VI—509
Of cancellation should be given to assignee if the fact of such inter-
est is known. - W–603
Of Appeal and Review.
Should be given the appellee in case of appeal from the local office.
IX-252
Of appeal and argument should include legible copies thereof. V–449
Mailing appeal and specification of errors by registered letter, within
seventy days after notice, through the local office, of the adverse
decision, is proper service. V–475, 479
Of appeal from a decision favorable to the entryman must be served
on the representative of his estate, if said entryman dies prior to
appeal. VI—779
Of appeal sent by non-registered letter is sufficient, if the receipt
thereof is acknowledged in Writing. W–479
Transmission of, in case of appeal, by registered letter prima facie
evidence that it was duly received. W–479
. Proof of mailing notice of appeal by registered letter is proof of
service. W–475
Written admission of the receipt of, in case of appeal, sufficient.
v–479; W1–108
If not addressed to the appellee in his true name, and he did not re-
ceive the same, the Department is without jurisdiction. IX—168
Service upon attorney of record sufficient notice of appeal. IV—8
Of motion for review should be given within the time for filing such
motion. IV–99, 106
Of motion for review must be given to the opposite party.
IV-145; V–382
278 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
X. PROCEEDINGS BY THE GOVERNMENT.
Instructions respecting the practice at hearings, for the purpose of
inquiring into alleged fraudulent entries, ordered on the reports of
Special agents. II–807
Circular regulations of July 31, 1885, and May 24, 1886, directing
the manner of proceeding against entries on special agent's report.
IV-503, 545
Pending cases not affected by the circular of July 31, 1885. V–372
On special agent's report; order of July 6, 1886, returning cases for
disposition under the circular of July 31, 1885, as amended.
W–149
Ordered on the report of a special agent must be conducted in ac-
cordance with the practice in contests so far as it is applicable.
IX—131
On special agent's report a proceeding de novo. W–22
It is within the discretion of the Commissioner to order a second hear-
ing in the interest of the government. WI–39
The Department will not control the discretion of the Commissioner
in ordering a hearing on the report of a special agent where the
facts as alleged in said report are denied. WI–705
Discretionary authority conferred upon the Commissioner by rule
72 will not be controlled in the absence of an apparent abuse.
IX–626
Should not be ordered on report of special agent on matters covered
by a former contest unless collusion existed between the parties.
IX—217
Will not be ordered on the report of a special agent, if the facts as
shown therein are not denied. VIII–306
The government has the right to appear before the local office, sub-
mit testimony, or examine witnesses offered by the parties to a
COInteSt. VIII–2
The government has the right to direct the continuance of a case in
order to investigate the same. VIII–2
Withdrawal or death of contestant does not prevent action on ev-
idence adduced. V–40, 386; VIII–598
Error on the part of the contestant will not bar the government from
acting upon facts established on trial. . IV—512
The Department on behalf of the government, may take advantage
of information brought out on trial. V-372, 395, 590; VI—300
The Department may, on its own motion, institute proceedings look-
ing to the cancellation of an entry. IV-235, 239, 249, 260; VII—25
A hearing may be ordered after prečmption entry is allowed, to in-
Quire into fraud reported by a special agent. II–787
A hearing is not necessary where the facts as shown by Special agent's
report are not denied, but if the entry is canceled, the claimant, or
his assignee is entitled to be heard before the Department on the
record as made. VIII–306
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 279
X. PROCEEDINGS BY THE GOVERNMENT—Continued.
A transferee may be heard to defend the entry where the county re-
cords show his interest, and the proceedings were had without
notice to him. IX—576
Transferee entitled to be heard, where the entry is canceled without
notice to him, even though the record does not show the transfer.
* VIII–283, 526
Transferee entitled to notice of, where the special agent's report dis-
closed the fact of transfer. V-170
Failure of the entryman to apply for hearing on due notice of order
of cancellation on special agent's report, is a confession of the
charge, and a waiver of claim to the land. VI—777
Cases decided in the regular course of business should not be re-
opened by the Department sua sponte, after the lapse of a consid-
erable period and in the absence of any alleged fraud or wrong to
an adverse claimant. VI—629
The entryman may show acts in compliance with law performed after
notice of proceedings. VII–486
May be dismissed by the local office on motion, subject to review by
the General Land Office. W–3
When ordered on special agent's report the government should sub-
mit its testimony first. Iv–62, 65; V-2, 22
XI. PROTESTANT. (See Mining Claim, and subtitle herein, No. VII.)
Status not that of a contestant. II-581; III–399; VI-765
Protestant loses his right to be heard by failure to appear at hearing
after due notice. III–374
XII. RE HEARING.
Application for, should not be considered without due notice to the
adverse party. WI–236
Failure to serve notice of application for, Ilot excused by misinforma-
tion from local office as to the requirements of the rules of practice.
WI–236
Should not be granted in the absence of a prima facie case made out
for investigation, VI–788; x–485
Permission to aniend defective application for, Will not impair inter-
vening adverse right. # WI–236
Application for, should be made before the local office, if the grounds
therefor are known while that office has jurisdiction. WI–9
New trial will not be granted on contestant's application, Save in ex-
ceptional cases. III–551,563
Except when based upon newly discovered evidence, motion for, must
be filed within thirty days from notice of the decision. IX—668
Motion for, before the local office should be taken up and disposed
of promptly. III–539
280 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS,
XII. REHEARING—Continued.
Will not be allowed unless the grounds for, assigned, bring the case
within the rules and well-established principles relating to new
trials. II—344
Not granted in contested case except under the rules of practice.
VI—239
Will not be ordered where the evidence proposed to be offered would
be merely cumulative. II–721; WI–9, 32; Ix–581
Will not be granted on the ground of newly discovered evidence
where such evidence tends simply to discredit or impeach a wit-
IleSS, VII–136
In motions for, resting on newly discovered evidence, it should be
shown that said evidence could not have been discovered by due
diligence, and the facts showing such diligence should appear.
VI–9; VII–136; x–483
Not awarded on the ground of newly discovered evidence, if such
evidence was or ought to have been known before trial, and no
good excuse is shown for not procuring it. IX—581
Allegation of newly discovered evidence as basis for, should specific-
ally state when the discovery was made. IX—581
Motion for, based upon newly discovered evidence, should show that
the alleged discovery was acted upon without unnecessary delay,
and the proof of diligence should be clear. g X—96
Will not be granted on the ground of newly discovered evidence
unless such evidence is of that character to necessarily cause the
trial court to arrive at a different conclusion. VII–136
Not ordered when the application sets up facts that should have been
presented at the former hearing, and gives no reasons for not pre-
senting such facts at that time. WI–422
Denied, where the motion discloses sufficient reasons for canceling
the entry. VI—335
May be ordered on the report of the local officers based on an in-
spection of the land involved. VIII–38
An offer to prove statements made by the opposite party to his attor.
ney does not furnish ground for a new trial. VII–136
Should be allowed where evidence was introduced and considered on
an issue not raised on the hearing as originally ordered.
- VII–433; VIII–159
Ordered where the case rested upon ex parte evidence. IV—201
Not granted on allegstion that the evidence was not properly tran-
scribed, where such fact might have been discovered while the case
was in the local office. IW–184
Will not be allowed where the applicant, relying upon technical
grounds, did not submit testimony when the case came up for trial.
WII–312
DIGEST of LAND DECISIONS. 281
XII. REHE ARING—Continued.
May be allowed where the applicant, acting in good faith and believ-
ing that the officer before whom the testimony is to be taken is
prejudiced and interested in the result, does not submit his testi-
mony before such officer. X—433
Where all the parties interested had full opportunity to be heard on
the question, and no new matter of fact or law is presented, denied.
- II–345
Will be allowed for the purpose of showing that collusion between
the entryman and the contestant's attorney defeated the hearing
on its merits. II–583
On a corroborated charge of fraud, though irregularly made, a re-
hearing will be ordered. III–57
Unsworn statement of the applicant's neighbors, showing his com-
pliance with law, can not be considered on motion for, in a con-
tested case. VI–239; x–96
Ea parte affidavits, after judgment, are to be received with great
caution, for the reason that they are apt to encourage fraud. II—720
Failure to comply with the law since the decision is matter for new
contest but not for rehearing. IV–185
Rehearing should not be allowed after default without excuse. III–247
XIII. BEVIEW.
Motion for, must be accompanied by an affidavit that it is made in
good faith, and not for the purpose of delay. IV-252; VIII–331;
IX—65; X–43, 446
Due notice of application for, must be given to the opposite party.
IV–145; V-382
Notice of a motion for, must be given within the time for filing the
same. ' W–99
Motion for, except when based upon newly discovered evidence, must
be filed within thirty days from notice of the decision. IV—11, 252;
v–17, 382; Ix—360; x–43, 413
Rule limiting the time within which motion may be filed will be
strictly enforced in contested cases. IX—668
That the application for reconsideration was not filed within thirty
days is immaterial, where the former decision rested upon an im-
perfect record showing as to the facts. III–42
Application for, is addressed to the discretion of the court. V–410
Not granted unless the case is brought within the rules and princi-
ples relating to new trials in the courts. I-209, 239; III–537, 607
Motion should present some new question or evidence. III–557, 598;
º V-438; IX—580
Will not be granted in the absence of specific allegations of error.
VI—781; VIII–331; x–43
282 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
XIII. REVIEW–Continued.
Not sufficient to allege generally that the decision is not in accor-
dance with the law and evidence; the errors of law should be
specified, and attention directed to the particular evidence relied
upon to secure a reversal of the decision. V–150; Ix–81, 340, 503;
X–446
Not granted on the ground that a reëxamination of the evidence
may bring about a different result. IX—5S0
Not granted, on the ground that the decision is against the weight of
evidence, if there was contradictory evidence on both sides.
1–111; V-150; VI—9, 243, 299
Not granted, on the ground that the decision is against the weight of
evidence, if fair minds might reasonably differ as to the conclusion
that should be drawn from such evidence. v–387;
- VIII–331; Ix–55, 419, 580; X-36
On the ground that the decision is not supported by the evidence
will not be granted unless it is affirmatively shown that the decis-
ion is clearly wrong and against the palpable preponderance of the
evidence. VIII–248, 331; IX—55, 98, 463
If allowed on the ground that the decision is contrary to the weight
of evidence, where there is some evidence to sustain the decision,
it must appear that the latter is clearly against the palpable pre-
dominance of the evidence. X–487
Will not be granted if the decision is warranted by evidence inde-
pendently of the alleged erroneous finding of fact. VIII–331
Not granted in case of concurring opinions of the local office, the
Commissioner and the Secretary, if there is evidence to support
the decision and it is not unquestionably in violation of law. VI-97
Granted, on newly discovered evidence that is material to the issue.
VI—243
If granted on the ground of newly discovered evidence it must appear
that such evidence could not have been discovered by reasonable
diligence in time for the trial. X–489
Motion for review of a predecessor's decision will be entertained
where it is alleged that newly discovered and material facts are
presented, which, if before considered, would have changed the
judgment. II–564
On application for, evidence of record and easily to be obtained will
not be considered “newly discovered.” IV—511; WI–41
Evidence in possession but not offered at the hearing can not be con-
sidered as newly discovered for the purpose of a reconsideration.
III–104
Not granted on newly discovered evidence which goes only to im:
peach the credit or character of a witness. VIII–331
Evidence cumulative in character, or tending to produce a conflict
with that already submitted, can not be accepted as proper basis
for. VI—243; IX-295
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 283
XIII. REVIEW–Continued.
In support of a motion for, testimony as to facts that occurred after
the hearing can not be considered newly discovered evidence. X-43
Application for, before the tribunal rendering the decision, should
be made when new matter is relied upon to set aside such decision.
VIII–294
Errors not alleged on appeal are not grounds for. VII–497; Ix–581
Will not be granted on questions that should have been presented
by way of appeal. IX—65
Will not lie for the consideration of a question not in issue when the
original decision was rendered. IX—337
Objection to the affidavit of contest will not be considered when
raised for the first time on motion for. VII–497
Will not be granted unless it clearly appears that manifest injustice
has been done. X—311
Of a decision that approves the action of the Commissioner in order-
ing a hearing, will not be granted except on the most cogent and
conclusive reasons. X—600.
Denied where it involves the reversal and disregard of repeated ex-
ecutive and judicial decisions and the matter has passed beyond
executive control. WI–462.
Will not be granted where the claimant or transferee is allowed a
further opportunity to support the entry, unless there is a palpa-
ble abuse of discretion, as shown by the record, in directing the
hearing or requiring new proof. - X–651
Not warranted on the ground that a witness was prevented by in-
timidation from testifying fully if the importance of the testimony
is not shown. X–483.
That applicant's attorney did not conduct the case skillfully is no
ground for. X–483.
Refusal of officer before whom testimony was taken to grant a con-
tinuance not ground of, where exception to such action was not
taken below. VII–497
Will be ordered where collusion between the plaintiff's attorney and
the contestant prevented a hearing on the merits. VII–262.
Secretary's decision dismissing a timber-culture contest, made on an
imperfect record, will be reviewed, and any consequent error recti-
fied. - II–247
When a case involving purely questions of law is decided in an ap-
pellate tribunal, re-argument is never heard, except when based
upon the suggestion of some member of the court who concurred in
the judgment. II–845.
Alleged error in construing a statute, or dereliction in respect of the
consideration given it, is not ground of review. II–845
That a decision has been overruled is no ground for, if the decision
has become final as between the parties. X-413.
284 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
XIII. REVIEW –Continued.
Of a departmental decision affirming the action of the General Land
Office will not be granted where, prior to the appeal, the appellant
had acquiesced in the adverse judgment and subsequently com-
plied with its requirements. X–439
Right of, waived by electing to proceed under the decision. IV–144
Decision denying a writ of certiorari not subject to. VIII–423
Decision of Board of Equitable Adjudication not subject to. I–411
Stranger to the record will not be heard on review. III–30()
Not granted to transferee, except on such showing as would entitle
the entryman to be further heard. v–589; Ix–580
Will not be granted on the application of a transferee, who, with
notice of the pendency of the case, fails to disclose his interest
therein while it is under consideration. …” X–81
Allowed on showing that notice of decision was not received. IV—242
Not granted except on full hearing of all parties. Iv–84, 106
On motion for, the Department may examine any material question
which it appears from the record was not considered in the orig-
inal decision. VIII–400
On motion for, the facts and issues in another and independent case,
pending in the General Land Office, can not be considered by the
Department. IX–497
On motion for, it will not be presumed that papers improperly in the
record were considered, if the conclusion reached was warranted
by competent evidence. IX—419
Motion for, can not be entertained by the Commissioner after appeal
from his decision. III–539; Ix–165
Not granted where an order therefor, made by the local office, was
set aside on applicant's motion. W–425
Request for, based on ea parte affidavits after judgment received
with caution. III–344
Where the Secretary dismisses a motion for review the case is not
held open for thirty days thereafter under Rule 76. III–595
Pendency of motion for, excludes intervening claims. X—192
Motions for, are disposed of as soon as a proper consideration thereof
will admit. IX—295
Motions for, usually take precedence of appeals on the regular
docket. IX—295
Application for, should be acted upon without prejudice to rights
recognized in the first decision. W–608
Motion for, before the Department, must be filed in the General Land
Office. III–595
Rule 114 requires but the transmission of the papers filed in Support
of the motion. IV-275
The Commissioner of the Land Office not authorized to review the
decision of his predecessor. III–256
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 285
XIII. REVIEW-Continued.
The Commissioner has authority to review a decision of his office,
sua sponte, and without notice to the parties, where such action is
required to put the office in accord with its own records. VII–13
Commissioner may review his predecessor's decision, where notice of
such decision has not been given. VII–42
The Commissioner of the Land Office may reconsider the decision of
a predecessor in a case where there has been no judgment on the
merits. III–50
Second.
Motions for second consideration should not be allowed.
IV–383; VIII–111
After disposition of a case on review, suggestions of fact or law not
previously considered may be presented by petition for such action
as may be deemed appropriate. VIII–111, 443
Petition for re-review will be denied unless it presents some new ques-
tion or suggests ground for the exercise of supervisory authority.
VIII–443
A petition for re-review will not be granted unless it presents facts
not previously discussed or involved in the case. Ix–93, 588.
Petition for second, should be limited to the suggestion of new facts
or questions not before presented. IX—295
Where a party has had a full hearing with decision on motion for
review, his case will not be again taken up on the technical plea
that the right of appeal was denied. IV-227
Not a proper ground for re-review that the decision on review was
prepared by the writer of the original decision. VIII–111
It is not a good ground for re-review that the oral argument on review
was heard by the same official that rendered the decision in the
first instance. - - IX—93
Prečmption. (See Alienation ; Application ; Entry, Filing ; Final
Proof; Residence ; Settlement.)
I. GENERALLY.
II. LAND SUBJECT TO.
III. QUALIFICATIONS OF ENTRYMAN.
IV. SECTION 2260, REVISED STATUTES.
V. TRANSMUTATION.
VI. HEIRs, DEVISEES, ETC.
I. GENERALLY.
Is the right to hold land before payment is made therefor, upon
promising to buy the land at a stipulated time, together with the
right to purchase at such time; it is initiated by settlement and
filing a declaratory statement, and has had its full life when the
stipulated time of purchase arrives. II–855; V-274, 538; IX—175
286 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
I. GENERALLY-Continued.
In general terms is a special preference given to a claimant by which
he may hold to the exclusion of others, dependent upon the per-
formance of conditions. III–71, 433; V–555
The word “preemption ” is of broad significance, and used in State
statutes and other laws, before incorporated into the land laws.
III–71
Assertion of claim under the law required to constitute a legal claim.
I–453
A conditional claim is unknown to the law. I–404
Recognizes settlement on land subject thereto, as the legal basis of
a claim against the United States. III–272, 281; V-274, 289, 538
Good faith in settlement is the fundamental principle upon which
the right of, rests. WI–285
Based on settlement and filing for the benefit of another void ab
initio. III–488; V–52
The phrase “in accordance with the general provisions of the pre-
&mption laws,” as used in section 22S3, Revised Statutes, is con-
strued as requiring compliance with said laws in the matter of
settlement and residence. VI-600
No validity in the filing and settlement of one who has exhausted his
prečmptive right. Iv–560; V-16
Benefits of, not secured by mere occupancy of public land. I–453
Under the act of June 21, 1860, the occupancy of public land for a
mail station does not form the basis of a prečmpfive right, X-167
Right of, not acquired by the purchase of the possessory right of a
prior prečmption claimant. 11–559 ; III–100 ; VIII–623; x–504
The purchase of improvements already upon the land equivalent to
making the same. I–137; IV—55, 62, 257
Cultivation in person not requisite. IV–56
Right of, as against adverse claims, rests upon priority in settlement.
IV—423
Where rights and equities are equal the first in time has the better
title. V–643
The first in time in the commencement of proceedings is the first in
right if such proceedings are regularly followed up. I–404
No vested rights are acquired by the settler prior to actual compli-
ance with the law, payment of the purchase price, and due re-
ceipt given therefor. V-442; VIII-269; Ix–41
The right to a patent once wested is equivalent to a patent issued,
and the final certificate obtained on the payment of the money is
as binding upon the government as a patent. III–23
Acceptance of final proof and payment by the local office do not pre-
clude inquiry into the claim of the prečmptor by the Land De-
partment. IX—316
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 287
I. GENERALLY —Continued.
Final proof and payment only secure the right to a patent in the
event that it is finally determined that the facts warrant its issu-
all Ce. - VIII–269
A prečmptor, who has complied with the prerequisites of the statute,
is entitled to a certificate of entry. II–167
The rights of the purchaser are established on final proof and pay-
ment, and no failure of the district office to act thereon can affect
the Same. III–172; VII–455; VIII–268
Right not lost through recognizing the title of another, when such
action was the result of erroneous decisions of the Land Office and
the prečmptor reasserted his claim as soon as he learned that the
land was open to entry. VII–92
Voluntary abandonment of claim duly protected by settlement and
filing precludes a further exercise of the right. WI–617
Failure to contest an adverse claim, which could have been contested
successfully, with abandonment of the land, exhausts the prečmp-
tion right. II–573
Right exhausted by the entry of eighty acres. I-485; VII–261
Right exhausted by an entry of forty acres. VII–204
Ičight of, once exhausted can not be restored except by Congress.
W–643
Right can not be maintained by one who is at the same time claiming
another tract under the homestead law. VII–225; VIII–200 ; IX-63
Right of, pot defeated by making a homestead entry pending con-
summation of the prečmption claim, where residence on, and im-
provement of, said claim were maintained, and said entry was sub-
sequently relinquished. IX-129
Claim finally concluded if unsuccessfully set up to defeat the final
proof of another. *. W–260
Suspension of plat considered as an excuse for non-compliance with
the law. IV—333
In the presence of an adverse right, failure to make payment for
offered land within twelve months from settlement, defeats the
right Of. X-387
Prečmptor having failed to prove up within statutory period may
purchase in the absence of adverse claim. III–272
An intervening settle:nent right set up to defeat a prečmptor in de-
fault as to proof and payment within the statutory period, must be
based on substantial acts of improvement. VIII–417
Right of, not defeated by the intervention of an adverse claim, on
failure to make proof and payment for unoffered land within the stat-
utory period, unless such claim is made in good faith by one who
has complied with the law. X–612
288 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
I. GENERALLY –Continued.
Failure of settler to assert any claim prior to the date of offering will
not defeat the prečmptive right, where the tract is not sold at said
offering, nor the sale delayed through the fault of the settler.
- - III–264
Failure to purchase within the statutory period does not necessarily
forfeit the claim as against the government, though subjecting it to
the entry of any other purchaser. IX—221
Land “settled and improved " by a prečmptor only becomes “sub-
ject to the entry of any other purchaser’ where it was open to pri-
vate entry at date of settlement. VIII–346
Offered land is subject to the entry of other purchasers, after laches
in filing by the settler, but is not forfeited as to the government.
III–119
The adverse claim of a railroad company is not that of “any other
purchaser.” - v–474; VI—520; Ix–221
Not defeated by homesteader who alleges residence within less than
six months after entry and fails to show the same. W–440
Good faith to be determined from the circumstances surrounding
each case. III–110, 411; IV–80
An intention to remove from the land on the submission of final
proof may be entirely compatible with good faith. VIII–50S
Good faith in the matter of improvements not impeached, though
the money therefor may have been advanced by another. ‘III–392
Circumstances as well as time recognized in the development of the
settler's good faith. I–446
Right to make entry recognized on return to land after absence.
I-435
A pretended settlement on timber lands for the purpose of securing
the timber thereon will not support a prečmption claim. IX—573
Under the act of August 4, 1882, opening to disposition the lands
within Fort Larned military reservation. VI—600
The prečmption laws do not include Indians. I–491 .
Right to take timber from claim permitted for necessary improve-
mentS. IV—289
A prečmption claim is waived by a subsequent application to enter
the land under the homestead law. II–504
II. LAND SUBJECT TO. (See Town Lots; Indian Lands.)
Land settled and occupied for the purposes of “trade and business”
at the date of entry is not subject to. V–182; VI-746
The “trade and business” contemplated in section 2258 Revised
Statutes must be actual. III–282
The exemption, under the head of “known mines,” is applicable only
to conditions existing at date of sale. WI–393
Lands containing known mines excepted from. VI—393; VII–73
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 289
II. LAND SUBJECT TO-Continued.
The phrase “known mines,” as used in the prečmption law, construed.
VII–73
Right of, not acquired by settlement upon land undér control and
occupation of another. IV-124
Right of, not initiated by forcible intrusion. III–278;
Iv–140, 388; V-377; VII–68, 92
Possession, under an invalid adverse claim, of a part of the land cow-
ered by the filing, does not interfere with the constructive posses-
sion of the prečmptor, or his right to the entire tract covered by
the filing. IX-344
The possibility of one party taking the improvements of another is
within the scope of the law. I–423
Right of, does not extend to land occupied under military authority.
e V-376
Not precluded by abandoned town site settlement. V-180
Land is not excluded from, because its altitude is such as to prevent
residence thereon throughout the entire year. VI–811;
VII–57; IX—450
Right of, extends to timber lands, but the final proof should show
that the land was taken in good faith for a home and not for the
value of the timber alone. VI-691; VIII–641; Ix–139
III. QUALIFICATIONS OF ENTRY MAN. (See Naturalization.)
Claimant must have the requisite qualifications at settlement.
IV-116
Prečmptor at time of filing was not qualified, but as the disqualifica-
tion had ceased to exist prior to the inception of an adverse right
he was allowed to purchase. III–500
Compliance with the law allowed to be shown on the removal of stat-
utory disqualification. IV-420
Daughter of an alien, deceased, who was a minor when her father
declared his intention, may exercise right of prečmption. II–611
The son of an alien, living, whose father has only declared his inten-
tion, and who was a minor at immigration, is not qualified to make
entry without having filed his own declaration of intention.
II–612
A declaration of intention to become a citizen filed by the father
during the minority of the son, does not qualify the latter, in the
matter of citizenship, under the prečmption law. IV-116
Settlement and filing before declaration of intention are of no legal
effect; where filing is so made, a subsequent settlement, after dec.
laration of intention, will support the filing in the absence of an
intervening adverse claim. II–627
Failure of prečmptor to declare his intention of becoming a citizen,
prior to filing, may be cured before the intervention of an adverse
right. III-452; VII–471
10464—19
290 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
III. QUALIFICATIONS OF ENTRYMAN–Continued.
Right of, exhausted by one who files before declaring intention to
become a citizen, and, in the absence of an adverse claim, subse-
Quently makes such declaration. VI-15
A married woman is not entitled to make entry. II–600
May be made by a deserted wife, as the head of a family.
II–312; W-42
An entry by a divorced woman will not be allowed where it appears
that she is not the head of the family, and that the divorce was
collusively obtained for the purposes of the entry. I–421
A divorced woman can not claim the benefit of acts performed by her
former husband, but must rely on her own compliance with the law
as a single woman or head of a family. I–401
A single woman who marries, after filing declaratory statement and
prior to final proof, defeats thereby her right of purchase.
III–384; Iv–70; VII–280
Entry of married woman who had complied with the law and pub-
lished notice of final proof prior to marriage sent to the Board of
Equitable Adjudication. I–460; IX—215; x–166
Entry by married woman, who, prior to marriage, had complied with
the law and tendered proof, may be equitably confirmed. VIII–433
Entry in good faith by a married Woman Who, prior to marriage, had
fully complied with the law in the matter of settlement, residence,
and improvements, may be equitably confirmed. X—629
IV. SECTION 2260, REVISED STATUTES.
Right of prečmption can not be exercised by one who owns 320 acres
of land, and a pretended transfer of title will not remove the dis-
qualification. X-46]
Qualification of prečmptor not affected by the ownership of land as
a trustee. I–462
The first clause of section 2260 Revised Statutes does not cover land
held jointly by the prečmptor and his wife in Dakota. IV-432
The proprietor of three hundred and twenty acres can not render
himself a competent prečmptor by the conveyance of one acre to
his infant child. III–56
Whether an entry is in violation of said section must be determined
by the circumstances in each case, and by the intentions of the
claimant. I–492
Claim of one who removes from land of his own to settle on public
land in same State invalid. 1–406; x–326
The prohibition against persons who quit their residence on their
own land is not restricted to those who hold legal title to said
abandoned land, but includes those who hold under equitable title.
II–616; v I-702; Ix–619; x–208, 326
Removal from land held under contract of purchase is within the
second inhibition of section 2260, Revised Statutes. WHI–472
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 291
IV. SECTION 2260, REVISED STATUTES.–Continued.
Joint ownership in land is sufficient under section 2260, Revised
Statutes, to preclude removal therefrom to reside upon public land
in the same State or Territory. VIII–367
One who removes from land in which he owns an undivided interest,
to settle on public land in the same State or Territory, is within
the second inhibition of section 2260, Revised Statutes. IX-605
One who removes from land of his own acquired under the homestead
law, to reside on public land in the same State or Territory, is
within the second inhibition contained in section 2260, Revised Stat-
UlteS. W–413; VII–195
Removal from a homestead after submitting final proof therefor,
though prior to the issuance of final receipt, is within section 2260,
Revised Statutes. to IX—619
That the homestead was under mortgage at the time of the removal
therefrom will not relieve the prečmptor from the statutory inhibi-
tion. VII–195
The second inhibition of section 2260, Revised Statutes, is applicable
though the removal is from land incumbered by mortgage. X—447
One who removes from his own home in a city is not disqualified un-
der the second clause of section 2260, Revised Statutes. I-490;
WI–407
In cases arising under the second clause of section 2260, Revised
Statutes, the character of the land from which the removal is made,
and the purpose for which it was used, may be considered. IX—512
Bar under second clause of section 2260, Revised Statutes, removed
by deed, in good faith, from husband to wife. IV—355, 432
Deed from husband to wife, executed in good faith, prior to the estab-
lishment of actual residence, removes the bar under the second
clause of section 2260, Revised Statutes. VIII–502
The second inhibition of section 2260, Revised Statutes, does not
apply to one who, prior to settlement or filing, sold in good faith
that portion of his homestead on which he formerly resided.
VIII–132
The inhibition in the second clause of 2260, Revised Statutes, is
against one who abandons residence on his own land “to reside.”
on the public land, and does not apply if the prečmptor had in good
faith sold the land on which he formerly resided before establish-
ing his actual residence on the prečmption claim. III–500; VIII–502
In applying the inhibition contained in the second clause of 2260,
Revised Statutes, the presumption of good faith attending the ex-
ercise of a legal right must be given due weight. WI–35
A pretended transfer of land from husband to wife will not defeat the
inhibitory provisions of the second clause of section 2260, Revised
Statutes. VII–69, 513; IX—463
292 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
IV. SECTION 2260, REVISED STATUTES–Continued.
The fact that an intending preémptor divests himself of the title to
land upon which he is then residing, on the very day on which he
alleges settlement on other land, is a circumstance sufficient to
warrant a doubt as to his good faith. v1–422
Where one owned land (homestead, after final proof) in the same Ter-
ritory and made a deed of it to another prior to settlement, but did
not deliver the deed until after settlement, he was not a qualified
prečmptor. II–579
Second inhibition of section 2260, Revised Statutes, not applicable
to one who had in good faith prior to settlement disposed of the
land then owned by him, though a formal deed therefor was not
executed until after settlement. VII—436
A subsequent sale of the homestead from which the prečmptor re-
moved will not relieve him from the inhibition contained in sec-
tion 2260, Revised Statutes. WI–767
Temporary removal, prior to the establishment of residence on the
prečmption claim, does not take such claim out of the inhibition
contained in the second clause of 2260, Revised Statutes.
III–56; X-117
One who has not, within a year prior to filing, made his home on
other land belonging to him in the same State, is not within the
prohibition of the second clause of section 2260, Revised Statutes.
WI–287
The second clause of 2260, Revised Statutes, presumes an actual prior
residence. IV—200
Filing and entry of one who removes from land of his own to settle
on public land in the same State exhausts the right of. V–413
W. THANSMUTATION.
There is no qualification of the provision allowing one to homestead
land “upon which such person may have filed a prečmption claim ; ”
the right to transmute is incident to a valid prečmption right, and
when exercised relates back to the date of the prečmptor's settle.
ment. II–635; Ix–32
Right of transmutation after the filing has expired is not defeated
by an intervening entry, made during the pendency of final proof
proceedings on the part of the prečmptor and with full knowledge
of his existing bona fide relation to the land. IX—305
A settler whose claim is initiated prior to the act of March 2, 1889, is
authorized by section 2 of said act to transmute his filing into a
homestead entry although he has already perfected title to another
tract under the homestead law. VIII–422; IX—556; x–634
Transmutation of a filing exhausts the prečmptive right.
VI–103, 570, 602; x–188, 493
Right of transmutation is dependent upon the validity of the pre-
emption claim. IV—561
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 293
V TRANSMUTATION.—Continued.
Invalid claim not strengthened by transmutation. Iv–561; V-15
Filing on school section in California may be transmuted to a home-
stead. III–229
A prečmptor in Kansas having become insane after filing and three
* years' residence, the wife's homestead entry in her own name was,
in view of the local law, treated as a transmutation and credit
allowed for the residence. III–64
The right to transmute a filing to a homestead entry does not extend
to the widow or heirs of the prečmptor. III–273
May be transmuted and final proof offered thereon the same day.
WI-379
VI. HEIRS, DEVISEE, ETC.
Entryman can not by devise defeat the right conferred by statute
upon the heirs. WI–30
The administrator, or heirs, may complete the claim of a deceased
prečmptor. III–274
Guardian or minor heir may file the necessary papers. IV–139
Heirs may enter within time accorded the prečmptor. W–454
The heirs of a prečmptor are not estopped by the action of the widow
in recognizing the adverse claim of another. IX—221
Heirs of a deceased prečmptor entitled to be heard as against an ad-
verse claimant. VIII–405
Duty of administrator fixed by notice of the claim. W–454
Executor not authorized to complete claim for the benefit of a devisee.
WI–671
Administrator, after qualification, may enter. W–454
Right of administrator to complete claim defeated by the interven-
tion of an adverse claim. W–454
Failure to cultivate on the part of the heir excused for climatic rea-
SOIlS. III–345
A prečmptor in default having died, his widow may take as a home-
steader from the date of his death, in the absence of an adverse
right. III–274
Preference Right. (See Contestant.)
IPrivate Claim.
I. GENERALLY.
II. SURVEY.
III. BOUNDARY.
IV. PATENT.
V. ARIZONA.
VI. CALIFORNIA.
VII. COLORADO.
VIII. FLORIDA.
294 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
Private Claim—Continued.
IX. LOUISIANA.
X. MISSOURI.
XI. NEW MEXICO.
XII. SCRIP.
I. GENERALLY.
The extent of a, is limited to the lands claimed in the petition for
confirmation as presented to the board. I–167,257; III–204; V-62
Pending final settlement of, the lands covered thereby are in a state
of reservation. I–166, 167; 392
Land embraced within, as presented for confirmation, is reserved
from other disposition until final rejection or location. I–167; V-62
The lands within the exterior boundaries of a “floating grant” re-
served until title vests. III–459; W-75
Grant of a, within larger exterior boundaries does not attach to spe.
cific tracts until after survey. III–180
In one of quantity within larger outboundaries, only so much of the
larger tract is reserved as may be required for the actual satisfac-
tion of the claim. IX-471
Not reserved until boundaries are identified. IV—29.4
Survey of, may become final as to a portion of the boundary while
the remainder is undetermined. III–307
A grant can not be extended beyond the decree of confirmation.
I–248
Ambiguity in a decree of confirmation can not be explained by testi-
mony, unless the terms are wholly indefinite. I–185
Decree of confirmation, nunc pro tune, has the same force and effect
as if entered at the actual time of the decision. I–21()
Reference in decree to expediente and grant makes that instrument
a part of the decree. L–188
The translation of the original title papers adopted in the decree of
confirmation must be followed in construing said decree. I–181
Withdrawal of, from Congress not necessarily abandonment. I–166
A suit to change location of the claim will not be directed where the
land forming the interest of the petitioners lies outside the grant
limits and could not be included in a resurvey or re-issue of patent.
III–78
Where patent issued, excepting for the government a military reser-
wation with buildings and improvements, and was received without
protest save as to the land, such protest is held to not include the
improvements. III–146
If the selection and location of a confirmed floating claim is limited
to a given period by the statute, the Department has no authority
to extend the time. W-705
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 295
I. GENERALLY –Continued.
Failure to confine selection, under a floating grant, to non-mineral
lands, in accordance with the granting act, will not authorize relo.
cation, if the statutory period for selection and location has ex-
pired. † V–705
Claimant referred to Congress for relief where the lands have been
for many years occupied in good faith by a large number of per-
sons and the grant is unconfirmed. III–416
The General Land Office has no authority to declare claims under
foreign grants to be held by complete title. I–272
II. SURVEY.
When confirmed, the sole duty of the Department is to ascertain the
extent and place thereof. I–394
The official survey takes the place of the juridical measurement re-
quired by the Mexican law. I–198
In the location of the survey must follow the decree of confirmation
and act of juridical possession. I–213, 248; V–559
It is the duty of the Commissioner to see that the location follows
the decree of confirmation as closely as practicable. I–213
In survey of, reasonable, not arbitrary, discretion should be exer.
cised. I–179
In closing, must terminate at “the place of beginning.” WI–41
If the call is plain, and no particular course is prescribed, a straight
line must be adopted. WI–179
In the survey of, mandatory and specific calls must be followed.
W–559
As the claim (New Mexico) was confirmed as “in the vicinity and be.
yond the limits” of a pueblo, the survey must be amended so as
not to conflict with the patented pueblo. II–421
In the survey of riparian grants in Louisiana the direction of the side
lines is determined by the form and general course of the water
front. WI-473
Because of erroneous connections in its plats and descriptive notes,
and because it identifies and conforms to but one of the boundary
calls, is rejected. II–368
Approved by the surveyor-general (California) becomes the official
survey, and must be followed in determining the location. II–366
The date of approval is the date of a survey. I–262; V–415
A survey approved by the surveyor-general is the official survey, and
must be published as such. I–248
Finality of survey determined by failure to appeal. IV—506
Whether the surveyor-general properly construed and followed the
decree of confirmation must be determined by appeal to the Gen-
eral Land Office. I—237
Authority of surveyor-general ceases on approval of survey. I-210
296 1) IGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
II. SURVEY-Continued.
Secretary has authority to reverse the action of the Commissioner in
the matter of a survey. V–483
The location of, within limits embracing larger quantity may be con.
trolled by the Land Department. - I–179, 245
Supervisory authority of the Land Department in the survey of, is
amply provided for. I–198, 213
Whether invoked by appeal or otherwise, the Secretary under his
Supervisory authority may order a resurvey. W–483
Resurvey of town grant allowed on corrected description of the bound-
ary lines. I–285
Questions relating to survey (New Mexico) are within the Commis-
sioner's jurisdiction, and properly come before the Secretary only
on appeal. II–420
The Secretary has complete jurisdiction over the survey (pueblo
lands of San Francisco). II–347
Appeal from action taken in the execution of an order for a modified
survey brings up only new matter. I–239
The Department will be governed by decisions of the courts as to the
validity of surveys in. III–177
The right to demand survey of a claim (California) under act March
3, 1851, inheres in the claimant only upon final decree of confir-
mation. II–365
Conflicting rights arising from premature survey protected in the
location of. I–180, 245
A second survey allowed pending confirmation. III–43S
Location by survey (New Mexico) may not be properly made until
after confirmation ; a preliminary survey prior thereto is not au.
thoritative or final. II–419
Preliminary survey of, allowed on deposit of sum to cover estimated
COSt. IV—430, 482
Only the proper costs of surveying and platting are required to be
paid by claimant; items in a certain bill of costs discussed. II-371
Payment of the costs of survey and platting is required in all cases
subsequent to act of July 31, 1876. II–463
In the absence of allegation or evidence of fraud, the Land Depart-
ment will not consider the question of necessity or cost of a com-
pleted survey. II–463
Survey made prior to decree rendered nume pro tune, but subsequent
to the actual decision, is valid. I–210
Survey of, not disturbed on indefinite charge of fraud. IV-508
In construing words of limitation the final action of the executive
authority is conclusive upon the Department. I-168
The grant claimants held estopped by the settlement rights of others
from disputing the correctness of the Survey. IV—546
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 297
II. SURVEY-Continued.
Where parties interested had full opportunity to be heard, and no
new matter of fact is presented, the question of approval will not
be re-opened. II–345
The Secretary of the Interior having settled certain lines of survey,
the Commissioner's indorsement of approval on the plat of survey
thereafter is merely a ministerial act. III–424
Application for approval of survey in, having been rejected in 1874,
the case was held res judicata on renewal of application in 1882.
III–177
Where the applicants for survey (Louisiana) are meagerly described,
but have been recognized and survey ordered, on objection amend-
ment will be allowed. II–395
After survey and patent, corrections must be secured in the courts.
I–229
The Higley survey accepted as defining the boundaries of the Moraga.
III—"04; V–155
Rule upon the Houmas claimants to show cause why the survey
should not be closed upon the line fixed by the court. IW–472
Publication of survey made and certified under the act of 1860 is
conclusive upon all parties. 1–260, 377; V–415
A survey made after the passage of the act of 1850, duly advertised,
and not taken into the district court, is final. I–260
A survey approved after the passage of the act of 1860 was such a
survey as that act contemplated. I–260
As to claims pending in the district courts for correction or confir-
mation of survey, new jurisdiction was conferred by the act of
1864. I–173
A survey approved prior to the act of June 14, 1860, published and
ordered into the U. S. district court under said act, and pending
therein at the passage of the act of July 1, 1864, was within the
jurisdiction of said court, and its approval thereof was final. I–173
Though survey had been published under the act of 1860, and ap-
proved by the court, as republication was ordered under the act of
1864 the case should proceed in the usual manner. I–246
Objections to survey are not required to be under oath by the act of
1864. I–266
Survey made and approved prior to the act of July 1, 1864, must be
published in accordance there with. I–210
Final determination as to survey under the act of June 14, 1860, con-
clusive as against claimants who do not protect their interests.
W–415
A survey approved prior to the act of June 14, 1860, duly published
aud ordered into court, and pending at the passage of the act of
July 1, 1864, is final. IV-102
298 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
II. SURVEY_Continued.
The act of 1864 contemplated final adjudication of all questions affect-
ing boundaries and extent, on objections to the first survey under
publication, and that subsequently no objections could be raised
against such adjudication under cover of attack upon the reformed
or modified survey. I-238
Authority of the court over surveys under the act of June 14, 1860,
V–320
Publication of notice not required by the act of July 1, 1864. V-483
In a case pending in the United States district court at the passage
of the act of July 1, 1864, the court was authorized to revise a for-
mer survey or order a new one. V-320
The approval of a new survey ordered by the district court in a case
pending at the passage of the act of July 1, 1864, rests with the
Commissioner of the General Land Office. V–320
Survey of, authorized by the eighth section of the act of July 23,
1866. V–43
Survey of, under section 8, act of July 23, 1866, is not effective for
any purpose until a copy of the plat is filed in the local office.
X-630
III. BOUND ARY.
In establishing boundaries the decree of confirmation must be fol-
lowed, and the Land Department has no authority to fix a cliffer-
ent line agreed to by coterminous owners. VL—179
Words defining the extent of without fixing a boundary, construed
and applied. W 1–473
Parol testimony in the location of, only admissible where the bound-
aries, as described in the decree of confirmation and act of juridical
possession, are ambiguous, or for the purpose of identifying said
boundaries. W-5.59
The delivery of juridical possession involved the establishment of
boundaries. I–198, 255
Confirmation presumes definite boundaries. I–181
The sixth section of the act of March 3, 1853, reserved until the loca-
tion of the grant (Moraga) only such land as was claimed, and
terms of boundary must be determined by the claim as filed before
the board of land commissioners. III–204
Extent of, not diminished or boundaries changed, because a river,
that marked a boundary line, has changed its course. I–213
Where a tract (pueblo lands of San Francisco) is to be bounded by
the ocean and a bay, the line intended is the line of ordinary high-
water mark of the bay and Ocean proper, crossing the mouths of
inland streams, though navigable and affected by tides. II–346
Where hills, mountains, or mountain ranges are named as bound-
aries the foot or base is to be taken as the boundary Ineant, unless
the top or ridge is clearly indicated. I–288
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 299
III. BOUNDARY—Continued.
The words in the decree of confirmation (pueblo lands of San José)
“ including part of the oak grove now or formerly at this place,”
“ and including all of the willow grove now or formerly at the source
of said river,” were not explanatory of other words of boundary,
but were descriptive of the actual boundary lines. II–359
Permanent monuments and natural objects named as boundaries con-
trol courses, distances, and quantity. II–366
Confirmation “to the extent of one half of a square league of land, a
little more or less ... bounded and described as follows:” the
boundaries designated will control the location (California). II—366
Where a river and a point of table-land are named as the western
boundary of a grant (New Mexico), the point of table-land forming
the southwest corner, and the river, after a northeast and north-
west course, runs easterly 33 miles, and then turns northeasterly to
a point due north of said point of table-land, the line should be
run north from the point of table-land to the said turn in the
river. II–425
Boundary limits as defined through Occupancy. IV—360
Exterior boundaries of the Rancho Azusa specifically defined. IV-357
Boundaries of Moraga and El Sobrante discussed. W–62
Boundaries of, established by adjoining claim. IW–294
The question of the boundaries of the claim (JHoumas) should be deter-
mined by the Commissioner before submission of the evidence in
an appeal to the Secretary. II–650
The adjudication of the boundary (pueblo lands of San Francisco)
goes to the title of the claimant as it existed at the acquisition of
the country. II—351
Where the lines of location necessarily conflict with prior grants
(New Mexico), it is not the province of the Land Department to
determine questions of title; the granted and confirmed bounda-
ries must be followed, leaving such interferences to be adjusted by
the parties or by the courts. II–426
The issue of patent finally settles all questions of boundary (Califor-
nia), in so far as the Land Department is concerned.
II–459, 466, 467
In a proper case of error shown, the Department may extend the
boundaries, although patent may have issued for a lesser area.
W–43
Evidence in the case (Rancho Casmalia) considered and found not
to justify interference with the original survey as patented. II–466
IV. PATENT.
Patent for, must follow confirmatory statute. V-61
Form of patent for, and to whom the same should be delivered, mat-
ters for the Commissioner of the General Land Office to determine.
IV—375
300 DIGEST OF LAND DICCISIONS.
IV. PATENT—Continued.
Error in judgment of Commissioner in location of, will not invalidate
patent. - - IV-568
Patent for unconfirmed grant will not issue. III–416
A confirmatory act must govern in the issue of patent; where the
confirmation was to “the inhabitants of the parish " (Louisiana),
the patent will so issue, and not to “the people of the parish.”
II–390
For a confirmed claim (Louisiana) issues in the name of the confirmee,
and inures to the benefit of those legally entitled. II–397
Under the act of 1832, patents for claims in Florida issue to the as-
signee of the confirmee on the production of regular chain of title.
W–677
Where delivery of patent (Florida) was the subject of controversy
before the surveyor-general by certain representatives of the heirs,
time for appeal should have been allowed; having been delivered,
however, to one of the parties, the Land Department will not inter-
fere with the possession. II–386
Where right to the patent (Louisiana) is in controversy the local
officers will decide the question, with usual time for appeal; if none
is filed, they will deliver it in accordance with their decision; if
appeal is filed, the case must be sent to the Commissioner and the
patent held until final action. II–388, 389
Persons claiming delivery of patent (Louisiana) must furnish an
unbroken chain of title, showing to whom the lands inure; if agents
or representatives, they must connect themselves with the patent-
€62S. II–389
Patents (Louisiana) should be delivered, with preference, in the
order named, to (1) the person to whom issued, (2) the claimant
under the grantee, with unbroken chain of title, (3) one presenting
a duly executed power of attorney from the person entitled as
above. II–389
Patent for, should be delivered to some one having an interest in the
land conveyed. III–554
Patent from the government would convey no title to land within
a complete French grant. VI-149, 347
The act of June 6, 1874, only dispensed with the necessity of patents
when the claimant was by law entitled to patent. III–179
V. A RIZONA.
In Arizona, under act of February 5, 1875, must be filed in the local
office, and then brought before the Commissioner on the question
of occupancy, before occupant can purchase; if decided adversely,
the land is open to prečmption or homestead, the occupant for less
than twenty years having the prior homestead right. II–340
Joint action by the local officers upon these claims is required by the
law. II–340
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. - 30%
V. ARIZONA—Continued.
Proof of occupancy must be by the facts showing it, and not by the
conclusions of witnesses. II–341
Where proof of occupancy is not sufficiently definite, witnesses must
be summoned and examined; instructions given. II–341
A prečmption claim may not be filed until the occupant claim is ad-
judicated. II–343
Falling within the act of July 22, 1854, is to be submitted to Con-
gress for confirmation. IV–484.
VI. CALIFORNIA. (See States and Territories, for rulings under sec-
tion 7, act of July 23, 1866.)
The act of March 3, 1851, is remedial to the extent of protecting claim-
ants under foreign grants in the assertion of their claims. W–65
Final decree of board and district court conclusive as between the
claimant and the government. IV—567
Extent of jurisdiction conferred upon the board of commissioners
and United States Courts. W–320
Confirmation by the board did not enlarge the grant, but passed title
in accordance with the law of the nation from which the claim was
derived. WI–186
The act of June 19, 1878, gave to the United States district court
jurisdiction as to title, and to the Land Department the location
of the claim. I—262
A decision of the Department under the act of 1864, as to whether a
grant is one of boundary or quantity is conclusive. I—238
The term “sobrante” means simply surplus ; a grant for a sobrante
is not a grant by name. I–181, 248
The words “lying in between " construed in the location of El So-
brante. I—191
The statutory reservation for El Sobrante was limited to lands lying
between the five ranchos (named). III–202, 204, 228
Held as “sobrante” in the sense that it applied to the surplus land
limited by the lines of the surrounding ranchos. I–248; IV–95
The right to the pueblo title and possession rests in the city of San
Francisco by judicial confirmation. Sanctioned and ratified by leg-
islative grant. II–346
The words “establishment of San José " construed to mean all the
lands held for the benefit of the mission. W–68
Status of mission lands in California. W–68
The claim to the Azusa Rancho was sub judice until the issuance of
patent thereon. W–691
Authority to hold and dispose of pueblo lands as recognized under
the laws of Mexico. WI–179
302 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
VI. CALIFORNIA—Continued.
Under the laws of Mexico in force in California at the time of the ac-
quisition of the latter country the pueblos were entitled to lands
occupied as the site of the town excepting those reserved for na-
tional use. WI–179
Where the court has vacated a decree and granted a new trial, the
Land Department will not take action until the final decree is
made. II–364
VII. COLOR ADO.
By the act of February 25, 1869, approved plats were made evidence
of title. I—269
The delivery of approved plat, as evidence of title, directed. I-269
The utility and propriety of allowing entries (prečmption) on lands
(Vigil and St. Vrain derivative claim) relinquished by the claim.
ants is doubted ; special considerations in this case which forbid it.
II–3S2
The land in question (Vigil and St. Vrain derivative claim) is not
open to entry or filing, because action on the appeal from the re-
jection of the claim by the local office was suspended by the Pres-
ident on the ground that it was final, which decision was overruled
by the circuit court, and the case is now pending in the supreme
court and not finally determined. II–385
Motion to substitute another for the appellant in the rejected deriva-
tive claim (Vigil and St. Vrain), on the ground of judgment and
sale under execution in his favor, denied on the ground that the
Land Department has no longer jurisdiction under the President’s
Order. II–37S
Since the President's order affirmed the finality of the decision of
the local office in the claim of Thomas Leitensdorfer, and patent
has issued for it, the tracts outside of the limits of the lands
allowed by the local office are subject to the settlement claims.
II–590
VIII. FILORIDA. (See subtitle, No. IX.)
In Florida, under one square league in quantity, reported for con-
firmation January 14, 1830, were confirmed by act of May 26, 1830,
except such as were confirmed by the Spanish government after
January 24, 1818. W–677
The specific exception of certain claims from the reports referred to
Congress January 14, 1830, is conclusive that all other claims, so
reported and referred, were confirmed by the act of May 26, 1830.
**. W–677
IX. LOUISIAN A.
A claim to land in Florida and Louisiana resting on Occupation, hab-
itation, and cultivation under the former government is a “private
land claim.” V-013, 617
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 303
IX. LOUISIANA—Continued. -
The term “grant” in the Florida and Louisiana treaties comprehends
not only those made in form, but any concession, order, or permis-
sion to survey, settle, or possess, whether evidenced by writing or
parol, or presumed from possession. W–620
Louisiana settlement claims not confirmed absolutely for a certain
number of acres. W–287
Title by “occupation,” etc., is of the same validity as one founded
on permission to settle or order of survey. V—617
Title resting on a permit to settle and an order of survey made prior
to 1800, without any settlement or survey, is incomplete. W–576
Title through succession sale dependent upon the jurisdiction and
order of the Court. V–158, 283
Where sale was ordered without proof as to heirs, former proceed-
ing, or the want of them, application by the purchaser for satis-
faction by issue of certificates of location is denied, on the ground
that the proceedings were insufficient to warrant the sale or effect
a transfer of title. - II–403
Legal representative of confirmee determined by the local law. V-285
A deeree of the State district court in the matter of a succession sale
is conclusive as to all facts necessary to convey title. W–158
Pulchaser of an inchoate claim at a succession sale, duly authorized
by law, should be considered the legal representative of the con-
firmee. v–158, 286; VI—437, 490
In a claim under succession sale the government has a right to in-
quire whether the property, or claim against it, was properly sub-
ject to sale and sold upon a proper application. III–44
Where a claim depends upon section 3, act of March 3, 1819, for
confirmation, the confirmee, or his legal representative, must iden-
tify the land. VII–1; VIII-391
But one tract of land granted to the actual settler or his legal repre-
sentative by section 3, act of March 3, 1819. IX—500
Section 3, act of March 3, 1819, excepts from confirmation lands
claimed or recognized under sections 1 or 2 of Said act. VII–1
Founded upon a British grant is not confirmed by Section 1, act of
March 3, 1819, if it had not been sold and conveyed, or settled upon
and cultivated prior to the treaty of 1783. s IX—514
Founded upon a British grant is not confirmed by either section 2 or
3 of the act of March 3, 1819. IX—514
Under the treaty of 1803 the United Stated acquired no title to land
included within a complete French grant. WI–149
}rants made by the representative of France, after the cession to
Spain, void unless recognized by the latter before the transfer to
the United States. I–272
304 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
IX. LOUISIANA–Continued.
The proviso limiting claims confirmed by the act of February 5, 1825,
to one league square is general and not restricted by the recom-
mendation of the local officers that certain claims should be limited
to one mile Square. I-275
Confirmed by the act of February 5, 1825, should pass to patent if
the survey did not embrace more than one square league. I-275
The mistaken classification of a claim in the report of the register and
receiver as among those already confirmed by law will not bring
it within the confirmatory provisions of the act of May 11, 1820.
VIII–80; IX—166
Prosecuted under the act of June 22, 1860, must be in the form, and
with the proofs therein required, and presented prior to the expira-
tion of Said act by limitation. III–72
Under the act of June 22, 1860, and amendatory acts, a claim is
barred after June 10, 1875, if not prosecuted prior thereto. IX—556
Jurisdiction of the Secretary under the act of June 22, 1860.
IV-475, 593
The claim (McDonogh) was one of those reported by the local officers
on November 20, 1816, in the first class, which were recognized by
the act of Congress, and declared to be founded on complete titles;
such recognition did not, however, fix its depth or extent, and the
duty of survey and segregation followed; as to claims in the sec-
ond class, where the equity was in the occupants and the fee in the
United States, the act annexed the fee to the equity. II–646
Conflicting with claim of State (Louisiana) can not be settled in ec
parte proceeding. . Iv–473, 592
The State (Louisiana) not estopped from questioning the extent and
location of the McDonogh claim by its suit in assertion of its right
as the legal representative of the interest in such claim bequeathed
to the city of New Orleans. WI–473
2X. MISSOURI.
A confirmation upon alleged occupancy does not inure to the benefit
of parties claimiug under a prior concession made to the same con-
firmee. WI–462
Confirmations under the act of June 13, 1812, were by virtue of in-
habitancy, cultivation, and possession, and not by virtue of con-
cession; and such confirmations were valid as against all claims
except those previously confirmed by the board of commissioners.
- VI–586
The final location of the Calve claim conclusive as to parties deny-
ing its correctness and asserting rights in conflict there with.
~~ III–177; WI–462, 586
XI. NEW MEXICO. -
The sole power of determining the validity of claims arising under
treaty stipulations with Mexico rests in Congress. I-581
DIGEST of LAND DECISIONS. 305
XI. NEW MEXICO—Continued.
Under the act of July 22, 1854, the local office is charged with the
preliminary investigation of a claim in New Mexico. III–138
The local office under act of July 22, 1854, may inquire as to the title
of claimants as well as the validity of the grant, and should locate
the grant as nearly as possible. III–138
Appeal to the Land Department does not lie from the report of the
surveyor-general to Congress. II–413
Examinations by the surveyor-general are ea; parte and notice to out-
side parties is not required. Iſ–416
The surveyor-general reports upon the validity (i. e., the regularity
and genuineness) of the claim, and it is not his duty to hear and
determine controversies between conflicting grants. II–417
Under the act of confirmation the acceptance of patent was in full of
all further claims. (Nolan grant.) IV—311
The Department has no authority to cancel a selection properly made
under a floating grant of lands subject thereto, or not known to be
excepted therefrom by their mineral character. W–705
Of Pueblo Tecolote, as confirmed by act of December 22, 1858, re.
quires patent, as in ordinary cases to individuals. W–61
XII. SC HIP.
The holders of title are the proper claimants for indemnity. III–238
Action as to issue of indemnity scrip under the act of June 2, 1858,
will not be taken except upon the application of a party in interest.
W–357
If owned by different parties, and the interests therein are separate
and determinate, scrip may issue to any one of the owners to the
amount of his ascertained interest. V–617.
The purchaser of a confirmed claim (Louisiana) becomes ipso facto
the legal representative of the confirmee, and as such is entitled to
the scrip issued in satisfaction thereof. II–405
Indemnity under section 3, act of June 2, 1858, will only issue to
the owner of the claim to which title has failed, and if the applicant
has parted with a portion of the land alleged as a basis, he can
only receive indemnity for the part then owned. VIII–463
The confirmation of, to the “legal representatives” of the original
occupant, Vests no right in said occupant, and parties claiming
through such occupant are not entitled to scrip under the act of
June 2, 1858. VI—436
“Occupation " claims in Louisiana and Florida are within the pro-
visions of the third section of the act of June 2, 1858. W–617
In claims for; it must appear that the basis therefor was not expressly
excepted from confirmation. W–283
Land deducted from, by judgment on remittitur, can not afford basis
for scrip, though presented by the heirs of the party in whose favor
the release was made. IX—556
10464—20
306 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
|XII. SCRIP-Continued.
Certificates of location will not issue except in case of actual loss.
IV-129
The issuance of one set of certificates in satisfaction of a grant ex-
hausts the jurisdiction of the Department. IV–13
Scrip can only issue under the act of 1858 where (1) the claim has
been confirmed and (2) remains unlocated. v–283, 570; VI–487
Scrip only authorized under section 3, act of June 2, 1858, in case of
confirmed claim, and proof of such confirmation must be furnished.
VII–1
Not authorized by the act of June 2, 1858, for any part of a confirmed
claim which at the date of its location was not in conflict with a
prior confirmation. IV-129
The claim for which indemnity is sought under section 3, act of June
2, 1858, must be shown to have been confirmed by Congress, and
not located or satisfied in whole or in part, VIII-391; IX—514
There is no authority for the issuance of scrip under section 3, act of
June 2, 1858, if the basis had not been confirmed by Congress.
VIII-S0
Under the act of 1858 Scrip should issue in case of an unsatisfied
claim for a specific quantity of land, founded on an order of Survey
made in 1795, with no specific location of the land. W–57 ()
The uncontroverted finding of the surveyor-general that no location
has been made is conclusive as to such fact. V-570; VI—437, 490
Scrip under section 3, act of June 2, 1858, can not be issued where it
is apparent that the Original settlement claim has been satisfied.
IX—49S
Act of June 2, 1858, does not necessarily include a claim specifically
confirmed by a private act. IV-129
Indemnity will be accorded in case of conflict between confirmed
claims belonging to the same person. III–23S
The third section of the act of March 3, 1819, confirmed the amount
claimed by the parties named in the Commissioner’s list referred
to therein; and indemnity is not authorized for land in excess of
the amount so claimed and confirmed. VII–152
Confirmed by the commissioners appointed under the act of March
3, 1807, is in effect confirmed by act of Congress, and hence within
the provisions of the act of June 2, 1858. WI–447
The claims of Toups and St. Amand were merged in Lanfear by act
of Congress; the patent thereupon issued, upon approved survey,
comprehended a location and satisfaction of the Toups claim in its
entirety; the case is res judicata, and the parties are estopped by
conduct and by the record from receiving scrip under the general
act. II–43
The relinquishment or yielding of a superior title in favor of subse.
quent and conflicting confirmations and locations, where the parties
in interest call obtain compensation in Scrip, is illegal. II—433
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 307
XII. SCRIP-Continued.
The issuance of scrip by the surveyor-general, under the third section
of the act of June 2, 1858, is subject to the supervision of the Com-
missioner of the General Land Office. V–570; VIII–463
Private Entry. (See Application, subtitle No. VI; Public Sale.)
Public lands withdrawn from, by act of March 2, 1889. (Circular of
March 8, 1889.) VIII–314
On one certificate, not to include a larger number of tracts than
provided for in the form. W–30
Though illegally allowed is, while of record, an appropriation of the
land. VIII–514
Of lands withdrawn from prečmption, not permissible in the absence
of express statutory authority. VI—522
Right of, can only be exercised after public offering of the land.
IV—155
Must be equal opportunity for purchase to all persons. IV—311
Re-offering an essential prerequisite, where the lands once disposed
of were restored to the public domain by a statute which provided
for such re-offering. VI–451 : VIII–189
Land offered at double minimum, and subsequently reduced, not sub-
ject to, without re-offering at the reduced price. 1–634; III–129
Te-offering at public auction not required in case of temporary with-
drawal. IV-155
Where the land was once offered, then increased in price, again of.
fered, then declared by Congress to be subject to sale at the first
price, and thereafter entered without further offering, the entry is
held voidable, not void. III–441; IV—152, 285; VIII–87, 189
The case of Eldred v Sexton cited and distinguished. IV—152; VIII–87
Lands which have been reduced in price should be re-offered at the
reduced price before opened to. VIII–87
An entry which is voidable for want of restoration notice may be
confirmed by the board of equitable adjudication. IV-152, 285;
VIII–87, 189; Ix–534
Not allowed for lands withheld from sale until after notice of restora-
tion. W–25
Restoration notice must follow the can cellation of an entry to make
the land subject to. W–25
Restoration notice does not take the place of public offering. IV–156
Restoration notice is to notify the public that the land is again for
sale at the minimum price. IV—156
Not allowed for land reserved through erroneous marking, until
after regular restoration. IV—311
On cancellation of entry covering offered land private entry should
not be allowed prior to restoration notice, but if so allowed is not
void but voidable, and may be sent to the board of equitable ad-
judication. WI–518
308 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
Private Entry—Continued.
Offered lands subsequently withheld from sale not subject to, with-
out restoration notice. VI–685
Cancellation of a prima facie valid timber-culture entry covering of.
fered land does not render it subject to. W1–819
Should not be allowed of land once included within a withdrawal, or
covered by a filing, until after re-offering, or restoration notice.
IX-534
Lands which have been once offered, then temporarily withdrawn,
and afterwards restored, should not be sold at private sale with-
out restoration notice. VIII–87
Can not be allowed until after restoration notice of land included
within an erroneous notation of record showing a prior disposition
of said land. IX–10
Lands once offered, then withdrawn from entry and subsequently
restored to the public domain, are relieved from their previous
offered condition and hence not subject to. VI-522; VIII-410
Under the graduation act of 1854 no public re-offering is required.
IV—156
Allowed for land, enhanced in price, when the record of the local
office showed it subject thereto, may be referred to the board of
equitable adjudication on additional payment of $1.25 per acre.
VII – 195
Made in good faith, of land included within an indemnity withdrawal,
may be referred to the board of equitable adjudication, where the
withdrawal is subsequently revoked and no adverse claim exists.
VIII–410
Made in good faith, of land withdrawn for railroad indemnity pur.
poses, may be equitably confirmed in the absence of any adverse
claim. IX-232
Of land once offered, and thereafter excepted from an indemnity
withdrawal by a homestead entry which is subsequently canceled,
may be referred to the board of equitable adjudication. IX—j94
Of land previously withdrawn as within the primary limits of a rail-
road grant, though made in good faith, is invalid and must be can-
Celed. IX—159
Sent to the board of equitable adjudication, where the lands had
once been offered, and were after withdrawal restored to entry
under the “homestead and prečmption laws.” VI—262
Allowed for land included within a prior swamp land claim, should
be suspended, with the right to show that the land did not pass
under the swamp grant. If such fact is shown the entry should
be sent to the board of equitable adjudication. VIII–644
For land within a prior swamp selection may be submitted to the
board of equitable adjudication, where the selection was subse-
quently canceled and good faith manifest. WII–218
DIGFST OF LAND DECISIONS. 309
Private Entry—Continued.
A tract is not excluded from, because it had been embraced within a
list of swamp selections, where the field-notes showed that the land
was not subject to selection and the claim of the State was not
noted of record. VII–193
Allowed to stand, though admitted pending the disposition of a prior
claim. IV—364
Origin of section 2272, Revised Statutes, authorizing private entry
by a prečmptor after expiration of the right of prečmption. II–856
The act of January 31, 1885, forfeiting the grant to the Oregon Cen-
tral, did not restore to private entry lands that were offered prior
to the granting act and included therein. Iv–17; VI-685
May not be made of land within the limits of the official survey of a
private claim in excess of the amount confirmed and patented.
d V–660
Lands affected by the repeal of the act of June 21, 1866, not subject
to, until offered. (Arkansas.) VIII–155
Cash entry for certain land reduced in price prior to re-offering held
to be confirmed by the act of March 3, 1883. (Alabama). III–339
The general withdrawal of public land from, by the act of March 2,
1889, is not applicable to the State of Missouri. IX–10
Application to make, may be filed by a homesteader of (Missouri)
lands embraced within his entry that can not be confirmed. X—661
Lands suspended from, by the joint resolutions of May 14 and July
16, 1888, were finally excluded from such disposition by the act of
March 2, 1889. X-351
Not permissi’ \le for lands affected by the repeal of section 2303, Re-
vised Statuves, until after offering. VIII–514
Amendment of, allowed under statutory provisions in case of error.
I–516
Protestant. (See Final Proof, subtitle No. VIII; Mining Claim, sub-
title No. IX; Practice, subtitle No. XI.) - *
Public Land. (See Survey.)
I. GENERALLY.
II. PRICE.
III. ILLEGAL INCLOSURE.
I. GENERALLY.
Island subject to sale or other disposal under the general land laws.
- I–393
Is that over which the surveys have been extended, or over which it
is contemplated to extend them. -- X—369
The phrase “public lands” as used in the act of May 14, 1880, means
“ public” in the sense that no one else has any claim to them.
WI–516
310 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
I. G.ENERALLY-Continued.
Islands and all accretions thereto are. I–596
The Department has no jurisdiction over lands formed by accretion
to a tract to which the government has no title. VII–255
Land formed by accretion belongs to the owner of the adjacent land.
I–596; VI-20; VII–255
Lands, with definite boundaries, ceded by treaty become public when
said treaty is ratified. III–302
Within the limits of the official survey of a private claim in excess of
the amount confirmed and patented is not subject to disposition
until after the survey has been duly amended. - V-66()
On cancellation of an entry the land covered thereby becomes vacant
public land and the Department has full authority to protect the
same from trespass. VI—239
Where the claim of a settler (prečmption) is rejected finally, further
occupation of the land by the claimant is a trespass. II–505
May be withheld from entry pending an examination in the field of
the survey. IX–12
Not withheld from settlement for an unreasonable period pending the
assertion of a claim thereto. IV—313
Should not be withheld from settlement on account of indefinite In-
dian claim. -> W–557
Improperly withdrawn for railroad purposes restored to the public
domain. IV—459
Lands excluded from the survey of the pueblo of San Francisco with-
held from disposition pending inquiry as to their actual status.
III–528
Open to entry after cancellation on contest, subject only to the right
of the Contestant. IV–534; VII–186; Ix–70,491
Land within the limits of a railroad grant, but excepted therefrom,
is subject to entry without restoration notice. IN–213
Scheme for opening to entry lands formerly embraced in Santee Sioux
Reservation. III–534
Plan for opening to entry lands formerly reserved under the Nolan
claim. IV—479
A lot made by uniting a small and presumably unsalable tract to an
adjoining subdivision, in another quarter section, is a legal subdi-
vision of the public land. II–460
Public land strip not attached to any land district. W–384
II. PRICE. (See Repayment.)
The term “minimum ” means the least price at which lands are to be
sold. IV—54
The price of the alternate reserved section along the line of railroads
was fixed by statute (Sec. 2357, R. S.) at double minimum, which
has not since been changed. II–681
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 311
II. PRICE–Continued.
Price of, under the act of January 13, 1881, restoring forfeited rail-
road lands. (Circular of April 30, 1886.) W–165
Price of, within forfeited railroad grants, and lands excepted from
such grants, reduced to single minimum by the act of March 2,
1889. (Circular of March 8, 1889.) VIII–314
Where the price of alternate ungranted sections is increased by stat-
ute, there is no authority for reducing the price, on the forfeiture
of the grant, in the absence of express statutory direction. V–269
Lands not passing under a railroad grant but within its limits should
be raised to double minimum. III–159
Even sections raised in price though reserved when the grant took
effect. III–477
Settlers on, prior to railroad withdrawal, entitled to purchase at ordi-
nary minimum. IX -4.04
Settlers on, prior to notice of withdrawal, entitled to purchase at
minimum price. IX–423
Decision, holding for cancellation an entry at $1.25 made in an even
section prior to receipt of notice of executive withdrawal for rail-
road purposes, reversed. II–557
A tract of railroad land released under the act of June 22, 1874, is
subject to entry at single minimum. I–327
Where a reservation is opened to entry the Commissioner of the
General Land Office fixes the price of the land. W–269
The circular of June 29, 1887, was not intended to enhance the price
of desert land covered by initial entry made prior to the promul-
gation of said circular. WI–145
Price of desert land within railroad limits is properly fixed at double
minimum. VII—436; vii.1–368
The act of March 3, 1853, fixing the price of, in railroad limits at
$2.50 per acre, was not repealed by the desert land act.
IX–49; X—541
Desert land within the granted limits of the Texas Pacific, could not
prior to the act of March 2, 1889, be sold at less than double mini-
II, Ul II), IX—271
Price of, within the limits of the withdrawal of August 13, 1870
(Northern Pacific), increased to double minimum. VII-495, 578
Even sections within the granted limits (Northern Pacific) could not
be sold at less than $2.50 per acre after the map of the general
route was filed. VI—507
Where an entry within railroad limits was allowed at single mini-
mum, the entryman will be required to make a further payment of
$1.25 per acre, or relinquish one-half of the land entered. VI-507
The grant to the Northern Pacific expressly limits the increase in
price to the “reserved alternate sections,” and such increase does
not, therefore, extend to odd-numbered sections excepted from the
grant. (Overruled, 12 L. D., 127.) VIII–58
312 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
II. PRICE—Continued.
Covered by the settlement of a prečmptor prior to the filing of the
map of general route (Northern Pacific) is not enhanced in price
as against the settler. VIII–318
Though certain odd sections within the limits of the Northern Pacific
Railroad did not pass by the grant, because at its date within the
limits of the Bitter Root Valley reservation, they are nevertheless
fixed at double minimum. II–676
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 Gov.
ernment suffers financial loss. II–676
The price of lands within the limits of the forfeited grant of the At-
lantic and Pacific Railroad Company in New Mexico is fixed at
$2.50 for both odd and even sections. V–269
The price of restored lands within the limits of the forfeited Texas
Pacific grant is fixed at double minimum. WI–157
All lands subject to entry within the limits of the Texas Pacific grant
were double minimum in price from the date of withdrawal on gen-
eral route to the passage of the act of March 2, 1889. VIII–530
Ilands in the San Francisco district, withdrawn for the Central Pa-
cific Railroad, were held not to inure to that company; before re-
storation they were embraced in the grant to the Southern Pacific
Railroad, but were held to be excepted from the grant; the odd
sections were ordered to be sold at minimum, and the even sections
at double minimum prices. - II–679, 680
Lands raised to double minimum on account of railroad grants, and
put in market prior to January 1861, are reduced to single minimum
by section 3, act of June 15, 1880; said act required a public offer.
ing before entry; where sales were afterwards allowed without such
offering, or made at double minimum, they were confirmed by the
act of March 3, 1883. II–677
III. ILLEGAL INCLOSU RE.
Unlawful inclosures of; circular of April 5, 1883. I–683; II–640
Unlawful inclosures of ; circular of July 19, 1883. I–684
It is illegal to fence a large tract of public land and to attempt to ex-
clude settlers from it. II–178; Iv–392
Persons desiring to become bonafide settlers may tear down the fences
surrounding such tracts. II–638
Injunctions will lie in the courts for unlawfully fencing the public
lands. II–798
IPublic Sale.
Has its origin in the act of 1820 as a condition precedent to private
entry. IW–156
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 313
Public Sale—Continued.
“Sales of public lands,” in all laws relating to public lands, means
cash sales; fees are not part of the price of land. II–696
Public lands will not be opened under policy of the Department to
cash purchase under public offering. III–149
There is no general statutory authority for the disposition of public
lands at auction; authority is given for such action by special
statute in each case. X—652
The Commissioner of the General Land Office is authorized by sec-
tion 2455 of the Revised Statutes to order into market isolated
tracts of unoffered land. X–615
Authority of the Commissioner to order into market isolated tracts of
unoffered land not abridged by the act of July 15, 1870. VIII–421
The authority of the Commissioner to offer isolated tracts at public
sale is not held to apply in localities where there remains a con-
siderable quantity of unoffered land. III–149
. The Commissioner's authority to order into market isolated and dis-
connected tracts of land, extends to a late military reservation, re-
duced to 148.11 acres (Fort Brooke, Florida). II–605
Where an isolated tract has been surveyed at the instance of a per-
son who has deposited the expenses of advertising and offering,
under section 2455, Revised Statutes, it is not subject to soldiers'
additional entry. II–242
Hand chiefly valuable for timber will not be ordered into market as
an isolated tract under section 2455, Revised Statutes. III–149
The only statutory authority for the proclamation of May 3, 1870, for
the offering of certain lands is found, if at all, in the last clause of
section 13, act of July 22, 1854, and as said clause is open to such
construction it must be presumed the President acted thereunder.
X–652
The legality of the offering under the proclamation of May 3, 1870,
of certain lands in New Mexico, must be held res judicata in view
of the lapse of time, and the expenditures of purchasers on the
faith of such offering. X–652
Lands covered by bona fide settlement claims can not be offered at
public sale under the act of March 3, 1883, regulating the disposi-
tion of lands in Alabama. III–169
The public sale extinguished the prečmption right, because of the
failure to make final proof and payment prior thereto, though the
land was, in fact, not offered thereat, being mineral. (Overruled,
11 L. D., 445.) - II–525
Purchaser. (See Alienation ; Homestead, subtitle No. XIII; Practice,
subtitle No. IX; States and Territories).
314 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
Railroad Grant. (See Final Proof, subtitle No. VIII; Railroad Lands;
Right of Way ; Wagon-Road Grant.)
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
XII.
XIII.
XIV.
XV.
XVI.
|XVII.
GENERALLY.
PLACE AND QUANTITY,
CONFLICTING GRANTS.
DEFINITE LOCATION.
WITH DRAWAL.
INDEMN1TY.
SELECTION.
LANDS EXCEPTED.
MINERAL LANDS.
INDIAN TITLE.
RIGHTS OF THE STATE,
RELINQUISHMENT.
ACT OF JUNE 22, 1874.
ACT OF APRIL 21, 1876.
ADJUSTMENT.
FORFEITURE.
CERTIFICATION AND PATENT.
I. GENERALLY.
Where the language of a grant is doubtful the construction must be
against the grantee. I–331, 336, 362, 368; IV-216, 429
No rights are acquired or title passed by implication; the granting
words must be explicit. III–243; V-49, 380
Rights under, must be asserted in accordance with estabiished pro-
cedure. I–466
The construction and operation of a railroad is sufficient to put sub-
sequent settlers on notice as to the rights of the road. VI–322
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. II–493
Lands within an unforfeited grant not subject to entry, though the
road is not constructed within the period specified in the grant.
VIII–589
Priority of right as between a settler and the company should be de-
termined by hearing before the local office. IV—256; V-474; x–281
In cases of conflict as to the right to lands within either the primary
or secondary limits, the beneficiary should be notified, with due
opportunity to be heard. X–684
Rights under, not affected by a decision against one claiming as a
grantee of the company, in the absence of notice to said company
or proof of the alleged transfer. IX—71
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 315
I. GENERALLY-Continued.
The failure of the company (Southern Pacific) to establish the con-
nection named in the granting act, and its possible effect upon the
grant. IV—218
The amount due the government from the 5 per cent earnings of
the Kansas Pacific Railway, ascertained upon the mileage basis.
III–585
II. PLACE AND QUANTITY. (See subtitle No. VII.)
Whether one of quantity or in place determined by the price fixed on
the sections not granted. W–137
The additional grant of March 3, 1865 (Minn.), was one of quantity
requiring selection. III–527; IV—232, 428
The grant of four additional sections by the act of March 3, 1865
(Minn.), was of lands in place. V–565; WI-326; VII–151
Under the grant of March 3, 1857, as extended by the act of March
3, 1865, the right to take lands, as granted lands, is confined to the
10-mile limit. VII–151
The words “to be selected within 20 miles from the line of said
road » in the granting clause of the act of July 25, 1866, do not op-
erate to make the grant a float, but serve only to define the limits
of the grant. W–135
III. CONFLICTING GRANTS. (See subtitle No. VIII.)
Priority of grant determines the right to land lying within common
granted limits. I–332; V–135; v1–443, 677, 816
Overlapping lands derived under the grant of 1864 are held by the
Omaha Company and Wisconsin Central as tenants in common.
VI-195.
The definite location and withdrawal under the act of June 3, 1856,
reserved the lands within the six and fifteen mile limits from the
grant of 1864, made for the benefit of the Wisconsin Central. VI-195
The relocation of the West Wisconsin Railway, though authorized,
waived all claims under the first location, and no claims of said
company under the act of 1864 can conflict with those of the Omaha
Colu pany, derived under the grant of 1856, the location of 1858,
and the construction of its road. VI-195.
Lands reserved, by executive order, for indemnity purposes under
the grant of June 3, 1856, are, by the express terms of section 6,
act of May 5, 1864, reserved and excluded from the grant made by
section 3 of Said act. X—63.
The act of May 5, 1864, does not confer any rights upon the Wis-
consin Central where its grant overlaps the limits of the prior in-
demnity withdrawal made under the grant of 1856. X-63,
316 - DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
III. CONFLICTING GRANTS_Continued.
The grant of May 5, 1864. of which the Wisconsin Central is the ben-
eficiary, and that of July 2, 1864, to the Northern Pacific, did not
take effect upon lands within the indemnity withdrawal under the
grant of June 3, 1856. X-147
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. II–476
The grant to the Atlantic and Pacific and Southern Pacific was by
the Same act, each company being entitled thereunder to an undi-
vided moiety of the odd sections, subject to the graiſt and within
common granted limits, without respect to priority of location or
Construction. WI–349
When grants are made for different roads by the same statute, priority
of location gives no priority of right. VIII–38
Where the limits of the primary grants, which are settled by location.
conflict, the roads take the sections within the conflicting limits of
primary location in equal undivided moieties without regard to pri-
ority of location or construction. VIII–38
Where grants to different roads are made by the same statute, pri-
ority of right in conflicting indemnity limits is determined by priority
of selection. IV-426; vi.11–38
The act of May 5, 1864, operated upon the indemnity limits of the
grant of June 3, 1856, so as to convert four miles of said limits into
place limits under said act of 1864, in favor of the roads common
to both grants. X–63
The grant of May 12, 1864, to aid in the construction of the two roads
named therein, was a grant in place, and of a moiety for each road
within the common granted limits. WI–47, 54
Lands falling within the limits of the Texas Pacific were excepted
from the grant to the Southern Pacific. IV—215
Land in common limits of Central Pacific and California and Oregon
roads, if excepted from the grant to the former, passed to the lat-
ter, if public, when the map of survey was filed. IV—484
Lands embraced within the indemnity limits of the Atlantic and Pa-
cific were excepted from the grant to the Southern Pacific.
. VI–679, 812, 816
Land within the subsisting granted limits of the Atlantic and Pacific,
when the map of the designated route of the Southern Pacific was
filed, is excepted from the grant to the latter company. VIII–282
The odd sections within the primary limits of the grant of June 10,
1852, excepted therefrom, but withdrawn under said grant, having
been “offered " after the adjustment thereof, and before the grant
of July 27, 1866, were not reserved from the operation of the latter.
VIII–165
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 317
III. CON FLICTING GRANTS-Continued.
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. II–679, 681
IV. DEFINITE LOCATION.
A line of road is definitely located.when the map thereof is filed and
the Secretary of the Interior gives his consent and approval to
such location. V–661
Date of survey of the road in the field no longer accepted as definite
location. II–484; V-tj9
Line fixed by definite location may not be changed except by legis-
lative authority. II–488; v1–195, 209
Rights that attach by definite location are absolute until forfeiture
is declared. - IX—246
After a formal definite location, rights acquired thereby can not be
disturbed by departmental action. W–661
Definite location of the line of road excludes the subsequent acqui-
sition of settlement rights on unsurveyed lands subject to the grant.
X–136
Under the former rulings of the Department it was held that a line
of road was not definitely fixed where it passed over unsurveyed
land. W–356
When a route is adopted by the company, and a map designating it
is filed with the Secretary of the Interior (as required by the grant-
ing act), and accepted by that officer, the route is established; it is,
in the language of the act, “definitely fixed.” II–481
The right of the State and of the company attached to the granted
lands when the route of the road was definitely fixed (i. e., when
the map was filed and accepted). II–483
Locality and quantity of grant fixed by the road as made or located.
W–468
A deflection from the line of definite location in the construction of
the road does not change the location of the grant or make it op-
erative upon lands not affected by the definite location.
VI–54, 209, 565
The location of one of two roads provided for in same grant held pre-
liminary, and not precluding change, if necessary to comply with
statutory requirements as to course and direction of said roads.
* - WI–54
The construction of a road on the line of “general route” will not
cause the map thereof to be treated as that of “definite location ”
unless so offered. W–79
The acceptance of the completed sections between San José and Sac-
ramento determines the date when the line was “definitely fixed”
(Central Pacific). V-62, 157
3.18 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
IV. DEFINITE LOCATION.—Continued.
Right of the California and Oregon Railroad Company attached on
filing map of survey in the General Land Office. IV—484
No direct authority for the appointment of the commission to deter-
mine the line of definite location between the completed portions
of the Central and Union Pacific. W–661
The status of land at the date of definite location determines whether
it is subject to the grant. II–477; V-62, 140, 155, 277, 397 ;
VI—356; Ix–402; x–167
The right of the road, under its grant, attaches to lands that are dis-
embarrassed at definite location, though said lands are reserved
at the date of the grant. II–477; V–62; WI-356;
VII–207, 223, 241
Land appropriated when the map of general route is filed, but free
prior to definite location, is not held to await the same, but is sub-
ject to the first legal application (Northern Pacific). V–333
The existence of a homestead entry at date of withdrawal on general
route does not except the land covered thereby from the grant if
such land is public at definite location. IX—156
Where local officers rejected a prečmption entry erroneously, and the
settler thereupon actually abandoned the land (without appeal), it
became public and passed to a railroad company on definite location
of the road. II–474, 570
The lines of the South and North Alabama Company (Successors)
were definitely fixed on May 30, 1866, between Decatur and Ca-
lera, and on July 26, 1871, between Calera and Montgomery, the
dates respectively when maps of definite location were filed in the
General Land Office, notwithstanding the fact that the granting
act did not require the filing of such maps. II–484
The map of definite location of the Central Pacific Company was
received and approved by the Secretary October 20, 1868, upon
which date its right attached, and not, as heretofore held, on July
18, 1868, the date of the adoption and certification of the map by
the officers of the company. II–48S
The line of the Dubuque and Pacific (now Iowa Falls and Sioux City)
Company was definitely fixed October 13, 1856, the date of accept-
ance by the Secretary of the map of definite location, and not at
date of survey in the field, as heretofore held. II–483
The line of the Saint Vincent Extension of the Saint Paul and Pacific
(now Saiut Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba) Company became
definitely fixed on December 19, 1871, when the map of definite
location was accepted by the Secretary, and not at date of survey
in the field, as formerly held. II–481
Where the line of the road (Northern Pacific) is definitely fixed, the
grant relates back, and takes the lands reserved by filing the map of
general route, so far as the line of definite location corresponds with
the line of general route. II–539
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 319
IV. DEFINITE LOCATION.—Continued.
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 pres-
ident and chief engineer of the company (McGregor and Missouri
River) was sufficient. II–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 duplicate map was filed in
1875, but was not approved until 1881; held that the original map
was due notice of the definite location of the road (Atlantic, Gulf
and West India Transit Company), that it should have been kept
on file, and proof of the authority of the State otherwise obtained,
and that it operated as a legislative withdrawal. I–359; II–561
Duplicate map of definite location treated as original, though filed
after the time allowed for the completion of the road. II–107
W. WITH DRAWAL.
It is the duty of the Land Department to give timely notice, by
prompt withdrawal, of the date and extent of the granted limits,
for the protection of both company and settlers. II–514
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. II–507
Executive withdrawal not effective until notice thereof is received at
the local Office. W–651
The power of the Department to withdraw the granted lands without
any direction expressed in the act, is well settled ; its purpose is
to prevent a defeat of the grant by private appropriation ; and the
authority to withdraw the indemnity lands must follow. II–514
The Department has power to make indemnity withdrawals, though
no express authority therefor is conferred by the grant.
V–655; WI–18
If there is no statutory denial of authority to withdraw lands in aid
of a Congressional grant, the czercise of such aui liority by the
executive reserves the land so withdrawn, though the withdrawal
may not have been contemplated by the grant. WI–522
An executive withdrawal of lands from private entry is sufficient to
defeat a settlement for the purpose of prečmption while the order
is in force, notwithstanding the law under which it was made
did not contemplate such withdrawal. II–553
An executive withdrawal should be given effect only to the extent
intended by the Department. VIII–23
320 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
W. WITH DRAWAL–Continued.
If the company (Northern Pacific) neglects to make its selection, and
uses the prior or subsequent withdrawals for the purpose of defeat-
ing the operation of the settlement laws, it will be the duty of the
Department to revoke the withdrawals. II–516
Withdrawals for indemnity purposes should not be maintained be-
yond a period sufficient for the assertion of rights that may be
properly claimed thereunder. WI–77
Section 6, act of July 2, 1864, authorizes withdrawal for the benefit
of the Northern Pacific. I–382
Withdrawal of indemnity lands (for Northern Pacific) is made in the
sound discretion of the Department, so as to subserve the purposes
of the grant. II–508
On May 17, 1883, the Secretary declined to withdraw from settlement
any portion of the odd sections lying within the second indemnity
limits in the Territories, on the ground that withdrawal is not at
present necessary for the company’s protection. II–511
The extension of the homestead and prečmption laws by section 6 of
the grant to the Northern Pacific, “to all other lands on the line
of said road when surveyed, excepting those hereby granted,” pro-
hibited an executive withdrawal of any “lands on the line of said
road.” VII–100
As there was no authority for the withdrawal based on the map of
amended route, and the sixth section of the grant (Northern Pa-
cific) prohibited an indemnity withdawal, it follows that land
within such withdrawals was not excluded from entry. VII–244
Where the tract was covered by an entry (homestead) at date of with-
drawal (1870) on general route (Northern Pacific), and was after-
wards (1872) relinquished and the entry canceled, it ſell into the
subsequent withdrawal (1880) for indemnity purposes on definite
location. II—j99
An unauthorized indemnity withdrawal is no bar to a homestead ap-
plication, and such application will defeat a subsequent selection.
VIII–282
The act of July 27, 1866 (Atlantic and Pacific), is both a contract
and a grant, but is not a grant of quantity, and directs no with-
drawal for indemnity purposes; hence there is no violation of the
contract, though the company may not get the full amount of sec-
tions in the primary limits or make up the deficiency in the second-
ary. VI—S4
The provision in the grant of July 25, 1866, that “the Secretary of
the Interior shall withdraw from sale public lands herein granted
on each side of said railroad so far as located and within the limits
before specified,” renders unauthorized any withdrawal beyond the
granted limits. VII-240
Lands within the indemnity withdrawal for the Atlantic and Pacific
were excepted from the grant to the Southern Pacific. W–691
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 321
W. WITH DRAWAL–Continued.
The withdrawal covering lands in the granted limits of the Southern
Pacific and indemnity limits of the Atlantic and Pacific continued
in force. VI–816
As the line of road (Atlantic and Pacific) terminates at the Pacific
coast, there was no authority for a withdrawal of lands along the
COaSt. IV—458
By definite location of road, and indemnity withdrawal under the ad-
ditional grant of 1865 (St. Paul, Minneapolis and Milwaukee Rail-
way Company), the lands covered thereby were excluded from entry
and settlement. W–565
The executive withdrawal (Atlantic, Gulf and West India Transit
Company) in anticipation of the probable limits of the grant (be-
fore definite location) was entirely valid; such withdrawal reserved
the lands from entry and sale, and could only be vacated by the
authority that made it; a new withdrawal, made after approval of
the map of definite location, is not inconsistent with the idea that
the former withdrawal (which had been overlooked and ignored)
was still extant. II–568
The statutory withdrawal provided for in the act of July 28, 1866, is
limited to lands within the primary limits by the words “all lands
mentioned in this act and hereby granted.” WI–535
Under section 12, act of March 3, 1871, it was not competent for the
Department to withdraw from the operation of the settlement laws
the indemnity lands of the New Orleans and Pacific grant, and
such withdrawal is no bar to the allowance of an entry. VII–487
The act of June 22, 1876, repealing the statute prohibiting the dis-
posal of public lands in Florida, except under the homestead law,
did not relieve lands from the effect of a subsisting withdrawal;
nor did the “offering ” under the proclamation of July 13, 1878,
affect their status, for “lands reserved for railroad purposes” were
expressly excepted from such offering. VII–56
After withdrawal (indemnity) the Land Department retained juris-
diction of tracts covered by entries and preemptions at the time
the withdrawal was made. II–506
Homestead entry of record excepts the land covered thereby from
the effect of withdrawal. 1–352; VIII–588
Land within the indemnity limits of the road (EHastings and Dakota),
which was covered by entry (homestead) subsisting at date of the
withdrawal was excepted from the withdrawal. II—501
Where a subsisting entry (homestead) excepted a tract from the
withdrawal (for EIastings and Dakota), on its cancellation (for fail-
ure to make final proof) thereafter the land became public, and was
subject to entry or selection by the first legal applicant. II–505
Land covered by entry at date of indemnity withdrawal is excepted
therefrom and after cancellation of the entry is subject to entry or
selection by the first legal applicant. IV—232, 266, 405
10464—21
322 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
W. WITH DRAWAL–Continued.
Where an entry (homestead) existed at date of the withdrawal (indem-
nity), on cancellation thereafter the tract does not fall within the
ban of the withdrawal. II–507
Entry was made in 1878, embracing land in sections 14 and 23, and
held for cancellation in May 1879, with right of amendment so as to
locate the entire tract in either section, but no actual cancellation
was made, or appeal taken, or amendment offered ; withdrawal for
the road was made July 1879, embracing section 23, and in 1880
the entryman made a second entry (including one-half of the land
covered by the first entry) of land within section 23; held that said
Second entry, being an amendment of the first entry, was valid.
II–852
Entries made prior to receipt at the local office of the executive with-
drawal, on preliminary line, except the tracts from the grant (North-
ern Pacific). II–554
An entry (homestead) on the tract at date of withdrawal (for North-
ern Pacific), though the land was afterwards abandoned, excluded
it from the withdrawal; on cancellation of the entry the land was
subject to appropriation by the first legal applicant. II–506
A prima facie valid prečmption filing existing at date of indemnity
withdrawal excepts the land covered thereby from the operation of
the withdrawal. III–305; V-568; VII-405
Valid subsisting prečmption claim excepts land from withdrawal, and
upon its cancellation the land reverts to the United States.
III–227
Does not take effect upon land covered by the settlement and filing
of a prečmptor temporarily absent in the military service of the
United States. IX–189
Failure of prečmptor, who settled prior to indemnity withdrawal, to
make final proof within the required period does not inure to the
benefit of the grant. I-400
Land occupied, at withdrawal, by a qualified prečmptor who filed no
claim is excepted from the grant. III–253
A filing, based on settlement prior to survey, made when it was held
that an indemnity withdrawal did not take effect upon unsurveyed
land, is good as against the withdrawal. VIII–21
An expired filing, in the absence of a settlement right claimed there-
under, does not except the land covered thereby from the opera-
tion of a withdrawal. VIII–570
A settlement right existing at the date of indemnity withdrawal
excepts the land covered thereby from the effect of such withdrawal.
III–285; VI-756; VIII–21
Settlement made during a temporary withdrawal, but continued
until the revocation of such withdrawal, and existing at the time
of the permanent withdrawal, excepts the land therefrom. WI–611
* -
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 323
Q
W. WITHDRAWAL–Continued.
A claim, based upon occupancy and cultivation, existing at the date
of indemnity withdrawal under the act of July 25, 1866, excepts
the land from the withdrawal. X—499
A valid and subsisting prečmption claim (settlement) at date of with-
drawal excepted the tract from withdrawal. II–512
Where settlement (prečmption) was made on unsurveyed land after
withdrawal, and on survey was found to be on an odd section, the
entry allowed must be canceled. (Valina Taylor case.) II–557
The principle enunciated in the Valina Taylor case is to be regarded
as a precedent. III–285
The abandonment of a settlement claim after withdrawal does not
render the land subject thereto. VIII–542
Executive withdrawal for indemnity purposes does not take effect
upon land covered by a voidable school selection. X—31
Land within indemnity limits but not Withdrawn or Selected is sub-
ject to appropriation under the settlement laws. WI–535
Entry within an existing withdrawal is invalid as against the grant.
VIII–570
A settlement within an indemnity withdrawal is unavailing as against
the company’s right to selection. VIII–355
Entry allowed, under an existing practice, for land within an indem-
nity withdrawal is not illegal, though subject to the rights of the
Company. VIII–243
Lands withdrawn by executive order in aid of a grant can not be di-
verted therefrom by settlement claims initiated after such with-
drawal. X-85
Where prečmption settlement was made subsequently to withdrawal,
the claim may remain, subject to the right of selection by the com-
pany (California and Oregon). II–512
The practice of allowing prečmption claims or homestead entries on
lands withdrawn for railroads, subject to final adjustment of the
grant, is forbidden (circular). II–517, 558, 560
General Route.
*Nºr 4-1-
e (Northern Pacific) was filed the stat-
ute withdrew from sale or prečmption the odd sections within the
designated 40-mile limits.
II–555; III–537; V-295; WI–11, 21; Ix–155; x–662
Where several maps were filed, and withdrawals under them made,
only that map finally fixing the general route created a legislative
withdrawal; the former withdrawals were executive, and took
effect on receipt of notice thereof at the local office. II–554
The statutory withdrawal for the Northern Pacific took effect in
Washington Territory when the map of July 30, 1870, was filed and
accepted. VII–100
Wil, on Flm o nºn an inf or real
w w W. A l-Ji.
a wa area. I were ** +
us a v as a cu tº v1. § v1.1 C L CU1 Ji U Ui U
324 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
W. WITHDRAWAL–Continued.
General Route —Continued.
Under the grant of July 2, 1864, a statutory withdrawal followed the
filing of a map of general route. Said withdrawal once exercised
could not be repeated, but remained in effect until the definite loca-
tion of the road. II–554; VII–100
The filing and acceptance of an amended map of general route was
notauthorized by the granting act (Northern Pacific), and an execu-
tive withdrawal made in accordance with said map was without
sanction of law. VII–100; x–288, 440
Upon accepting a certain map of amended route (Northern Pacific),
it was ordered that the rights of Settlers within the new with-
drawal must be protected, if settlement or entry were made prior
to receipt of notice at the local office. II–552, 556
On general route for a branch line will not reserve lands for the main
line (Northern Pacific). VIII–365
The withdrawal on general route of Northern Pacific did not debar
the executive from the exercise of its ordinary authority in estab-
lishing military reservations. WI–657
A homestead entry record excepts the land covered thereby from, of
on general route, and the subsequent cancellation of the entry
leaves the land open to entry till definite location.
III–490; x–307, 427
An entry made before receipt of notice of withdrawal on general
route (Northern Pacific) excepts the land covered thereby from
such withdrawal. WI–21
Where entry was made on the same day as that on which the map
of general route (Northern Pacific) was filed, the tract was ex-
cepted from the withdrawal; on subsequent relinquishment, it be-
came public and was embraced in the withdrawal on amended line
of general route. II–569
Where an entry (homestead) existed at date of filing map of general
route (Northern Pacific), which was afterwards, but before 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. II–536
Prečmption claim existing at date of withdrawal on general route
(Texas Pacific) excepts the land therefrom. I–388
Withdrawal on general route (Northern Pacific) did not take effect
on land covered by a prečmption claim. W–529
Prima facie valid filing of record excepts the land covered thereby
from withdrawal on general route. (Sioux City and Pacific.)
VIII–292
On general route does not take effect on land covered by an unex.
pired prečmption filing. X-288
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 325
V. WITHDRAWAL–Continued.
General Route–Continued.
An unexpired filing by one in esse excepts the land covered thereby
from subsequent withdrawal on general route, and the company
will not be heard to allege that the prečmptor has not complied
with the law. X–662
Prečmption filing made the same day the map of general route was
filed, and of record when the order of withdrawal was made
thereon, excepts the land included therein from the withdrawal.
VIII–542
Where the tract was excepted by a claim (filing) from the withdrawal
on general route (Northern Pacific), but was afterwards actually
abandoned on erroneous information given by the local officers, it
thereupon became public, and passed to the company on definite
location. II–474, 570
A cash entry of land within the withdrawal on general route, made
after the map of such route was filed, but before notice of with-
drawal, is illegal and does not except the land covered thereby.
IX—155
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 with-
drawal on amended map embraced the land, the entry (homestead)
is disallowed; (See also p. 557). II–551
The withdrawals of 1873 and 1879, on general route of the Northern
Pacific (branch line) and amendment thereof confer no right as
against a settlement made after the first and before the second.
(Reversed, 2 L. D., 551.) I–397
A claim based on settlement, residence, and improvement existing at
the date of withdrawal on general route, excepts the land included
therein from such withdrawal. (Northern Pacific.)
VII–131, 238; VIII–362; x–264
A settlement right, though unprotected by a filing, existing at with-
drawal on general route, excepts the land covered thereby from
the operation of such withdrawal. VII–131
Where after date of grant (Texas and Pacific) withdrawal (on pre-
liminary line) was made, covering land for which had been filed an
application to purchase (Sec. 7, Act July 23, 1866), and the land
embraced in the application was afterwards suspended from sale
pending its consideration, the withdrawal was not affected by said
Suspension. II–549
Withdrawal on general route (Northern Pacific) took effect on lands
(unsurveyed) which were within the limits of an Indian reserva-
tion (in Montana), upon subsequent extinguishment by executive
order of the right of Indian occupancy. II–519
326 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
V. WITH DRAWAL–Continued.
Revocation.
Indemnity withdrawal confers no vested right, and is dependent upon
the will of the Secretary of the Interior, who may revoke the order
and restore the lands to entry. II–516; V-658
The Department may prescribe rules under which the failure of the
company to properly assert its right as against a settler after in-
demnity withdrawal will operate as a revocation thereof as to the
tract involved. W–658
Question as to the revocation of certain executive withdrawals sub-
mitted to the President. WI–77
Rule of May 23, 1887, entered on certain companies to show cause
why the executive withdrawals made for their benefit should not
be vacated. VI-80, 82
A withdrawal resting solely on the general authority of the Secre.
tary of the Interior in such matters may be vacated without viola-
ting any law or contract. WI–84
Executive withdrawal for the benefit of the Atlantic and Pacific re-
voked on the ground that such action is required by a sound public
policy with respect to settlement rights, and is not in violation of
either law or equity. VI–84
Withdrawals revoked under the rule of May 23, 1887.
VI–92, 419, 456
Statement showing the names of roads included in the orders revok-
ing certain indemnity withdrawals under the rule of May 23, 1887,
the dates of said orders, and the location of the lands affected
thereby. VI—131
Certain grants not affected by the order made under the rule of May
23, revoking indemnity withdrawals. VI—328
The order of August 15, 1887, revoking the indemnity withdrawal
made for the Wisconsin Central to stand, pending an early adjust-
ment of the grant. WI–190
Withdrawals for the Memphis and Little Rock Company, and the
Madison and Portage Company revoked. VIII–427
The order of August 17, 1887, revoking the indemnity withdrawals
made in aid of the grants of June 3, 1856, and May 5, 1864, sus-
pended. X–85
For indemnity purposes for the benefit of the Chicago, St. Paul, Min-
neapolis and Omaha Company revoked. X–147
The order of December 7, 1887, restoring the odd numbered sections
South of the terminus of the Denver Pacific and west of the ter.
minus of the Kansas Pacific at Denver, Withdrawn but not certified
or patented, vacated. Patents not to issue for lands within said
alſea. WI–581
I)IGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 327
Y. WITH DRAWAL–Continued.
Revocation—Continued.
The revocation of an indemnity withdrawal takes effect as soon as
issued, and a settlement on land within such withdrawal, existing
at the date of revocation, will be protected as against a subsequent
selection. VIII-355
Revocation of withdrawal opens land to appropriation under pending
applications. WI–309
Revocation of withdrawal opens land to settlement and entry from
the date when order becomes effective. VI-378, 382
Revocation of, does not restore to the public domain land included
within pending Selections. IX–74
Procedure to be observed on the part of the company and settlers in
case of conflicting claims for lands within the limits of a revoked
indemnity withdrawal. VIII–237; IX-251
Under the order revoking its indemnity withdrawal, the “right of
the company to make selection ” should be determined by the land
office in cases of unapproved selections covered by applications to
file Or enter. VIII–237
The company will not be heard to object to a settlement claim within
its indemnity limits after revocation of the withdrawal and in the
absence of a selection. VIII–355
A prima facie valid entry for land withdrawn as indemnity is relieved
from conflict with the grant on revocation of the withdrawal if the
land has not been selected. VIII–243
Revocation of withdrawal effected by appropriation of the land and
its subsequent restoration to the public domain. W–332
VI. IN DEMNITY. (See subtitle Selection.)
Indemnity lands included within the general descriptive phrase
“granted lands.” IX—468
A railroad grant does not take effect upon particular indemnity lands
prior to selection. 1–332, 340, 389, 627; IV-256; v1–431, 615;
VIII–23; x 504
The company (Northern Pacific) does not acquire title to the indem-
nity lands until actual selection of them. II–506, 510
The rule that the right of a railroad company took effect at the same
time upon both indemnity and granted lands obtained for many
years and until April 7, 1879. II–528
Right to indemnity must be recognized though the road is not built
in the required time. V–93, 512
The joint resolution of May 31, 1870, created a second indemnity belt
(Northern Pacific.) VIII–13
The object of the law is to give the company (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 intended to be granted, and no more. II—514
328 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
VI. INDEMNITY--Continued.
Land not within the withdrawal on general route, but within the
indemnity limits on definite location, was free from the operation
of the grant until duly selected. (Northern Pacific.) VII–100
Indemnity can not be allowed for lands sold by the government
after definite location. WI–195
Indemnity can not be allowed for lands in place erroneously certified
to another company. WI–195
On relinquishment, māy be allowed for lands improperly patented as
within the granted limits, if in fact such lands were excepted from
the grant. IX—483
Claim for, based upon a loss of lands taken under the swamp grant,
can only be allowed so far as the ciaim of the State has been recog.
nized. IX—483
Through discrepancy in the indemnity limit diagrams, intervening
rights are held to bar the claim of the company. III–428
Where the grant (to Florida) designated neither even nor odd sec.
tions, the company (Atlantic Gulf and West India Transit) elected
to take the odd sections. II–561
The act of July 13, 1866, provided for deficiency in case the road
ran nearer than 10 miles to the State line, and did not apply to
lands east of the road (St. Paul and Duluth). IV—407
Under the act of July 13, 1866, “deficiency” and “lieu’’ lands occupy
the same status. IV—407
If the indemnity provided for one of the lines or branches (St. Paul,
Minneapolis and Manitoba Railway) prove insufficient therefor, the
deficiency may be supplied from the indemnity limits of the other
lines or branches. (See 13 L. D., 354.) VIII–255
In adjustment of the grant made by the acts of 1856 and 1864 (Wis.
consin), the right to indemnity must be recognized as extending
to losses ascertained at definite location. VI-195, 209
The acts of 1856 and 1864 provide indemnity for losses before defi-
nite location caused by the Swamp and internal improvement
grants previously made to the State (Wisconsin). WI–195
The indemnity accorded the Farm Mortgage Company for losses be-
tween Portage and Tomah should not be deducted from the indem-
nity claimed by the Omaha Company (Wisconsin). WI–19
The Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha Railway Company
is entitled to, for losses sustained through the overlapping of the
6 and 10 mile granted limits at the junction of the main and branch
lines of the road. IX—483
Under the act of March 3, 1873, the Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis
and Omaha Railway Company can make indemnit, selections for
lands settled upon within the indemnity limits between Tomah and
Hudson, and which might have been selected if the order of with.
drawal had been made on definite location. IX—465
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 329
VI. INDEMNITY –Continued.
The grant of May 12, 1864, to the State of Iowa was a grant in place,
and of a moiety for each road, within common granted limits; hence
no indemnity can be allowed either road for lands lost by reason of
the moiety granted the other. VI-47, 54
Lands within the indemnity limits of the old line (Cedar Rapids and
Missouri Railroad) east of Cedar Rapids may be selected in lieu of
lands west of said city, if required to make up the six sections per
mile to which the company is entitled. IX–370
Grant to the Grand Rapids and Indiana Railroad provides for a con-
tinuous line, with the right to take indemnity anywhere along said
line. X-676
Lands subject to the grant in aid of the Marquette Company at date
of withdrawal and certification thereunder, though within the in-
demnity limits of the Ontonagon Company, were not subject to
selection therefor. WI–649
The fee simple of lands within the limits of the grant (Northern Pa-
cific), to which the Indian title had not been extinguished, passed
under said grant, subject only to the right of Indian Occupation,
and said lands, therefore, afford no basis for indemnity. VII–100
VII. SELECTION. (See subtitle No. VI.)
Until selection is made the title to indemnity lands is in the Govern-
ment and subject to its disposal. III-306
Priority in selection determines rights dependent thereon to land in
common limits. IV—426
No absolute right to granted land exists, and no right of indemnity
selection can possibly rise until the line of road is definitely located.
VII–100
The right of a railroad company to indemnity lands is acquired by
selection and not by definite location. III–51
Right acquired by selection dependent upon the status of the lands
at date of selection and not at date of withdrawal. X-504
The right of selection within indemnity limits is a preference right
that may be asserted as against every One. W–658
Selections should be made from lands nearest the granted sections
in which the loss is alleged. Iv–90; VIII–373; x–147
Indemnity selections, circular instructions, August 4, 1885. IV-90
The validity of a selection can not be determined if the basis is not
designated. * Iv–90; Ix–370
In the absence of statutory direction the right of selection not gov-
erned by the coterminous principle. W–81
Selections of unsurveyed lands not allowed. VIII–307; X—214
The provision in the appropriation act of July 30, 1876, requiring
payment by railroad companies of the cost of surveying, selecting,
and conveying the lands, is of a general and permanent nature
(see p. 669). - II–463
330 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
VII. SELECTION.—Continued.
A selection is an entry or appropriation of land within the meaning
of the act providing for repayments. II–681
The term “selection” not applicable to granted lands and no right
is acquired thereby. v–396; VI-750
“Listing” or selection by the company in nowise affects the status
of land within the granted limits. VII–358
The company required to “list” its granted lands. VIII–30
The failure of the company to “list "lands within the granted limits
will not defeat proceedings had to determine the mineral or non-
mineral character of the land. VIII–30
The words “to be selected within 20 miles of the road' do not make
the grant a “float.” V–135
Failure to assert the right of selection within indemnity limits as
against a settler until after final proof is a waiver of such right.
W–658
Lands “in place” excepted from the grant are not subject to indem-
nity selection under the same grant. Iv–407; V-432
Lands granted to one company not subject to selection as indemnity
by another. VI–816
Indemnity selection can not be made of land within the granted lim-
its of another road not constructed within the required period, but
definitely located, and remaining unforfeited by Congress.
V–582; VIII–33
A tract is not excluded from indemnity selection by reason of its
being within the primary limits of another grant, if it is in fact
vacant public land at date of selection and otherwise subject to
Such appropriation. IX—452; X-15
The order of August 15, 1887, as to filings and entries on lands cov-
ered by unapproved selections, made applicable to the second
indemnity limits of the Northern Pacific. . VII–334
Selections may be made within the first indemnity belt, irrespective
of State or Territorial lines within which the loss occurred (North-
ern Pacific). VIII–13
Land within the second indemnity belt may be selected, on a prima
facie basis, without waiting for the final adjustment of the grant
within the primary limits and first indemnity (Northern Pacific)
belt. X-15
Under the act of June 2, 1864, the right of the company to even sec.
tions within the 6-mile limits of the grant of May 15, 1856, does
not attach until selection, and the right of selection can not be
exercised until after definite location of the modified line of road.
X–176
A deed executed by the company prior to selection does not alter
the status of the tract included therein as “public land,” or pre-
clude the subsequent selection thereof by the company. X-504
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 331
VII. SELECTION.—Continued.
During the pendency of an indemnity selection filings should not be
recorded for the land covered thereby. IX—250; X-454
A pending indemnity selection excludes the land covered thereby
from entry. VII–80; X-15
A selection by the company intact upon the records, although invalid
(land not subject to selection), bars a homestead entry. II–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 (homestead).
II–540
Settlement claim can not be recognized for land covered by selection
until it is shown that the tract was not subject to selection, and
the failure of the company to appear at a hearing ordered to deter-
mine the status of the land, does not relieve the settler from the
necessity of submitting such proof. X–683
At date of the grant and withdrawal the land was within the bound-
ariesofa Mexican claim (Diaz), which was subsequently declared in-
valid, and thereafter, but before claim of the settler (Ryan), the com-
pany (Central Pacific) selected it; held by the Supreme Court that
it was public land at date of the selection, and that said selection
barred the settlement claim. II—509
Lands included within pending selections are not restored by the
revocation of the withdrawal. X—317
Land covered by an uncanceled homestead entry is not subject to in-
demnity selection, VII-405
An existing homestead entry within indemnity limits, made before
withdrawal became effective, bars selection by the company. III–304
A selection should not be allowed for land included within a pending
homestead application. VI–649, 666; VII–244
A homestead settlement right existing at the date of indemnity Se-
lection excepts the land covered thereby from the operation of said
Selection. VII–182
Settlement claim precludes indemnity selection of lands excepted
from withdrawal. V–566.
Pendency of prečmptor's appeal reserves the land from selection.
Iv–232, 405; V–396
A settlement right existing when an indemnity withdrawal is revoked
is Superior to a subsequent selection. X–444, 454
A settlement right within indemnity limits, acquired after revocation
of the withdrawal and prior to selection, excludes the land covered
thereby from selection. IX—250; X—31
Settlement of an alien no bar to the selection of. X–463
A selection of land included within an unexpired filing is subject to
the rights of the prečmptor, and the company can not take advan-
tage of his failure to occupy and improve the land. X–199
332 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
VII. SELECTION.—Continued.
On application to select land covered by an expired filing, where it
does not affirmatively appear that the prečmptor had in fact aban-
doned his claim, a hearing should be Ordered to determine the status
of the tract at date of selection. WI–613
An expired prečmption filing, under which no claim is asserted, does
not exclude the land covered thereby from indemnity selection.
IX—452
Expired filing of record does not bar selection of the land, unless
it be shown that the prečmptor had not in fact abandoned the land
(St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba Railway). VIII-291
On application to select land covered by an expired filing, a hearing
should be had to determine the status of the land (St. Paul, Min-
neapolis and Manitoba l'ailway). VIII–291
A selection, to become effective on title (Northern Pacific), needs the
approval of the Department. II–820
Procedure in case of application to enter lands covered by an unap-
proved selection. X—504
It is discretionary with the Secretary whether he will permit the
company (Northern Pacific) to select lands occupied by bona fide
Settlers, and he may protect such occupants so far as it can be done
consistently with law and a due regard to the company's rights.
- * II—508
VIII. LANDS EXCEPTED. (See subtitles Nos. IV and v.)
Congress reserved all claims recognized by the government from the
operation of the grant (Central Pacific). I–341
Land in reservation at the date of the grant and definite location is
excepted from the terms of the grant. IV–94, 429
The provision in section 2, act of March 3, 1863, with respect to set-
tlement rights “on any of the reserved sections,” refers to the even-
numbered sections, not granted. VIII–570
The clause, “that any and all lands heretofore reserved to the
United States by any act of Congress * * * for the purpose of
aiding in any object of internal improvement * * * be, and
the same are hereby, reserved to the United States from the opera-
tion of this act,” construed. IV—573
A subsisting order of the President, withdrawing lands for the use
of Indians, excepts the land covered thereby when the grant takes
effect. W–432
Land within a military reservation at date of definite location is
excepted from a grant, and no subsequent act of the Executive
could render the land subject thereto. VII–430
The act of June 10, 1880, abolishing Fort Seward military reserva-
tion, was a legislative recognition of such reservation as an excep-
tion from the grant to the Northern Pacific, and the law to govern
the disposition of the lands embraced therein. WI–657
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 333
VIII. LANDS EXCEPTED–Continued.
The lands in the Bitter Root Valley, being reserved for the use of the
Indians, were not public lands free from “other claims or rights”
when the Northern Pacific Railroad Company filed its map, and
therefore were not affected thereby. I–368
If the grant is a present one, and the title does not vest when the
grant takes effect, it can not vest afterward. I-336, 362, 366; V–13
The act of July 1, 1862 (Pacific roads), granted “public lands,” but
defined them as those lands which were public at date of definite
location of the roads. - II–480
Land subjudice at the date the grant becomes effective is excluded
therefrom. IV—100, 357, 397
Land not free at definite location do not pass. V–138
Does not take land covered by homestead entry at date of granting
act, though said entry is subsequently canceled. I–388
Land covered by prima facie valid entry when the right of the road
attached is not granted. 1–362; IV—206, 281, 405, 421, 438;
- V–396; VIII–378; IX-654
Entry of record at date of definite location excepts the land covered
thereby, though it appear that the settler had abandoned his claim.
WI–750
The effect of a prima facie valid entry, existing when the grant be-
came operative, unchanged by the subsequent declaration of the
entryman that the entry was fraudulent. - IV—421
Homestead entry of single man made through an agent, while in
naval service, held to defeat the grant. III–446, 479
Pending reinstated entry within indemnity limits excepts the land
covered thereby. WI–444
Lands covered by entries or filings, and so excepted from the grant,
inure to the public domain on the cancellation of said entries.
II–505; III–166; VII–357
That the cancellation of an entry was not noted of record until after
definite location, though ordered prior thereto, would not operate
to defeat the grant. WII–163
Precedence as against a grant is accorded a homestead entry made
on the day when the map of definite location was filed.
II–570; V–356
Land within the granted limits of the road (St. Paul and Pacific, now
St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba), which was covered by an
entry (homestead) subsisting at date of the grant, was excepted
from Said grant. II–501
An entry (homestead) of record when the State conferred the grant
on the company (Hastings and Dakota), though allowed after with-
drawal, excepted the land from the grant. II–541
The right of purchase under the act of June 15, 1880, defeats the
operations of, at definite location. W–333, 529; VI-8
334 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
VIII. LANDS EXCEPTED–Continued.
The right of a widow to purchase under section 2 of the act of June
15, 1880, existing at date of definite location, defeats the claim of
the Company. III–490
An entry under the act of June 15, 1880, existing at definite location,
excepts the land covered thereby from the grant, and this without
regard to any subsequent decision as to the validity of such entry.
VII–148
Existence of a prečmption claim at date of definite location excepts
the land covered thereby from the operation of the grant.
I–366, 380; V-553; IX—221; x–464
Subsisting preemption and homestead claims, at the date when the
grant took effect, excluded the lands covered thereby (Central Pa-
cific). I–336
Preemption claim existing when the line of road is designated excepts
the land included therein; on the subsequent abandonment of the
claim the land reverts to the public domain. IX—173
In determining whether, under the grant of July 2, 1864, land is free
from a prečmption or other claim or right, the validity of the claim
is not material. VII–238, 354
A railroad company is precluded from inquiring into the validity of
claims existing within its granted limits at date of definite location
(Union Pacific). VII–13
A prima facie valid prečmption filing of record at the date when the
right of the company attaches excepts the land covered thereby
from the operation of the grant.
VII–13, 85; VIII–380; X-54, 288, 568, 645
An unexpired prečmption filing of record at definite location raises
a prima facie presumption of the existence at that time of a pre-
emption claim, sufficient to except the land covered thereby from
the operation of the grant (Union Pacific). IX—595
Land covered by a preemption filing and settlement at definite loca-
tion is excepted from the operation thereof, and the validity of the
claim can not be questioned by the company (Northern Pacific).
VII–354
A prima facie valid unexpired prečmption filing of record when the
grant becomes effective raises a presumption as to the fact of the
claim that is conclusive as against the grant, in the absence of an
allegation which, if proven, would render the filing void in its incep-
tion. X-645
That a preemption filing was made without settlement, or that the
prečmptor did not subsequently comply with the law, are facts that
can not be shown to defeat the effect of an unexpired filing as
against the grant. X-288, 645
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 335
VIII. LANDS EXCEPTED–Continued.
Under the grant to the St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba Company,
the existence of a filing, when the grant became effective, will raise
a presumption of right, which, in the absence of proof to the con-
trary, is conclusive as against the grant. VIII-380
Lands covered by an unexpired prečmption filing, at the date when
the grant becomes effective, are not subject to the operation of a
grant from which are excepted lands to which the “right of pre-e
emption has “attached” when the line of road is definitely fixed.
X-575, 684
A hearing to determine the validity of an unexpired filing, of record
at date of definite location, will not be ordered in the absence of an
allegation that the claim had in fact ceased to exist at said date
(Union Pacific). IX—595
A declaratory statement filed after the map of general route (North-
ern Pacific) was accepted, but alleging settlement prior to such ac-
ceptance, does not establish the fact of settlement as alleged, and
a hearing will be required to settle the status of the tract at the
date of the statutory withdrawal. VII-235
An expired filing of record, when the grant becomes effective, is not
a “prečmption claim " that excepts the land covered thereby from
the grant. X–645
If an expired prečmption filing is found of record when the grant
becomes effective, it will be presumed that the claim of the settler
is abandoned, but such presumption is open to rebuttal. X-645
Land covered by an expired filing at definite location should not be
awarded to the company without a hearing to ascertain whether in
fact the prečmptor had at such time abandoned his claim.
VI—520, 613
A prečmption filing, fraudulent ab initio, because there is in fact no
such person as the alleged prečmptor, is a nullity, and ineffective
as against the grant. X–662
Land included within an expired filing is not excepted from the grant
of May 15, 1856 (Iowa), in the absence of a prečmption right at
definite location, * VIII–546
Burden of proof upon company to show that a prečmption filing for
land within the limits of the grant is not valid. I–379
Land not excepted from, by fraudulent prečmption claim existing
when the grant took effect. I–390
Where the tract was covered by a prečmption filing at date of the
grant (Texas and Pacific) and withdrawal (on preliminary line) the
burden rests upon a subsequent claimant (prečmption), alleging
that the filing excepted it from the grant, to show that the said
filing was a valid claim. (Overruled, 7 L. D., 18.) II–550
336 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
VIII. LANDS EXCEPTED–Continued.
The act of May 6, 1870, was a present grant absolute and uncondi-
tional, to the Central and Union Pacific Roads, conveying certain spe-
cified tracts; A filed a prečmption claim on one of said tracts May
19, 1869, and relinquished it March 29, 1871, on which day B made
homestead entry thereon, held that 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. - II–844
Under the original grant to the Central Pacific, and the amendatory
act of 1864, the equitable claim of a settler is protected. VII–406
Land not free from “prečmption or other claims or rights' does not
pass, and the validity of such claims is not material (Northern Pa-
cific). VIII-379
A claim resting on settlement, residence, and improvement, existing
when the grant becomes effective is within the excepting phrase
“occupied by homestead settlers.” (Northern Pacific.) VIII–362
Under the express terms of the grant to the Northern Pacific lands
“occupied" by homestead settlers at the date when it becomes
effective, are excepted therefrom. X-258, 386
The exception in the third section of the grant to the Northern Pa-
cific applies not only to settlers who have made entry, but also to
those who are entitled to make entry. X-427
Homestead settlement claim of an Indian who has abandoned the
triloal relation, existing at date of definite location excepts from the
grant the land covered thereby. X–440
Occupation by qualified prečmptor at date of withdrawal on prelim-
inary line of Texas and Pacific excepts the land from the grant.
III–164
Lawful possession under the Settlement laws a valid appropriation
of the land as against the rights of a grant attaching subsequently
thereto. I–341
A settlement right existing at the date when the grant becomes
effective excepts the land covered thereby from the operation of
the grant. V–274; VI-151, 172, 224, 485; VII–182; VIII–58, 362,
- 365, 378; x–290
A claim resting on settlement, residence, and improvement, existing
when the grant becomes effective, excepts the land covered thereby
from the operation of the grant. VIII–520, 542
A prečimption claim based upon Settlement, occupancy, and improve-
ment, existing at the date when the grant attaches, excepts the
land from the operation of the grant. VII–406; IX—213; x–281
Settlement on unsurveyed land, within the granted limits, by intend-
ing homesteader, excepts the land from the grant. III–130
Failure of the homestead settler to make entry within the statutory
period, does not subject to the operation of the grant the land cow-
ered by his settlement. IV—256; X-427, 637
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 337
VIII. LANDS EXCEPTED–Continued.
The settlement of a qualified prečmptor, though unprotected by a
filing prior to the attachment of the grant excepts the land there-
from. v1–98; VII–131
The settlement and occupation existing when the right of the road
(Central Pacific) attached of one who had failed to assert his claim
thereto excepts the tract from the grant. III–264, 271
When a prečmption claim has attached by settlement, though the
settler may be in laches with his filing, the land is excepted from
the operation of a grant which is limited to lands free from such
claims, and abandonment after filing does not affect the question.
- III–119
The settlement right of a prečmptor existing at date of definite loca-
tion excepts the land covered thereby from the grant, although at
such date the prečmptor had failed to make proof and payment.
I—357; WI–520
Defeated by prečmption claim for offered land existing at definite
location, though the settler had failed to make proof and payment
within the statutory period. Iv–353; V–473
A railroad company is not entitled to plead the status of a “purcha-
ser” as against a prečmptor who fails to purchase within the Stat-
utory period. 1–380; III–271; V-474; VI-520; VII–133; IX—221
Does not take effect upon land covered by prečmption claim, though
filing was not made in time, such default being only to the advan-
tage of the “next settler.” I–380
If the preference right of purchase under a prečmption claim exists
at definite location the land is excepted thereby, though actual
habitation may have ceased prior thereto. V—553
Where a prečmption right was extinguished on the day of public sale
(1858), but the prečmptor was still maintaining settlement, etc., at
date of definite location (1863), the tract was not excepted from the
grant. (Overruled, 11 L. D., 445.) II—525
The abandonment of a settlement right after the grant becomes effec-
tive does not render the land subject thereto. V–274; VI—172,
326, 485; x–290
To establish the allegation that a tract is excepted from a grant by
reason of a settlement thereon, it must be shown that when the
grant became effective there was a valid subsisting settlement of
one qualified to perfect his claim. VII–228.
An existing settlement when the public land laws were extended over
the Territory bars operation of the grant. IV—341
The uncontradicted testimony of one witness may be accepted to
establish the fact that a tract of land was covered by a preémption
claim when the grant became effective. Ix–213; X—464
Where settlement is made on the day the right of the road attaches,
the land should be awarded to the settler. I—331
10464—22
338 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
VIII. LANDS EXCEPTED–Continued.
Recognition of the company’s claim by the widow of a prečmptor will
not estop the government or the heirs of the prečmptor from
asserting title. IX–221
Not defeated by settlement where the filing showed that the land was
not claimed thereunder. IV—401
The citizenship of a settler can not be questioned by the company, if,
on the date of its selection, a certificate of naturalization issues to
the settler who is then on the land. X-444
Settlement of an alien not effective as against. V1–98, 615
The occupancy of a trespasser, at the time when the grant becomes
effective, does not except the land covered thereby from the grant.
WI–322
Does not take effect upon land within the claimed limits of an unad-
judicated private claim. I. 392
Though subsequently excluded from the private claim, the land, being
sub judice when the grant became effective, did not pass there-
under. WI–33
Takes land excluded from private claim prior to the date when the
right of the road attached. W–415
The status of lands lying upon the boundary lines of a private claim
determined by the major portion thereof. IV-98
Where the tract was within the exterior limits of a Mexican claim
(Moquelamos), which was sub judice (in the courts) at date of the
grant and withdrawal, it was not public land, and did not pass to the
company (Western Pacific). II–510
Where the tract was within the exterior limits of rancho (by the La
Croze survey) at date of the grant (Central Pacific), but was seg-
regated therefrom (by the approved and confirmed Stratton survey)
at date of executive withdrawal and of definite location, it was
public land aud in ured to the grant. II–477
Where the tract was in the exterior limits of a rancho (San José), as
surveyed, at date of filing map of designated route (Southern Pa-
cific), but was excluded therefrom by a subsequent approved sur-
vey, it was excepted from the grant. II–546
The rancho claim (Millijo, or La Punta) was rejected finally in 1855,
and application to purchase made in 1869, under section 7, act July
23, 1866; the grant was made in March 1871, and withdrawal (on
preliminary line) in October 1871; in 1872 the sale of the land was
suspended, pending consideration of the application, which in
1873 was rejected : Held that the land was subject to the grant,
and reserved for the company (Texas and Pacific), though definite
location of the road has not yet been made. II–548
The right under the grant remains the same, whether the survey pro-
ceedings in the private claim were dismissed for want of “prosecu-
tion ” or “jurisdiction.” IW–100
sº
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 339
VIII. LANDS EXCEPTED–Continued.
Does not take effect upon land within the claimed limits of a private
claim. W–691
Lands within the larger outboundaries of an unlocated private claim
of quantity are subject to the operation of, except as to the quan-
tity actually required to satisfy the claim. IX—47 l
Land embraced within a survey of a private claim under section 8,
act of July 23, 1866, is not excepted from the grant, if a copy of
the plat is not filed in the local office before the grant becomes
effective. X–630
Prima facie valid selection excepts land from the effects of. IV—438
A voidable State selection covering land at the time the rights of the
road attached excepts the land from the grant. III–88, 501; VII—350
Discovery of the invalidity of school selection after the right of the
road attached will not aid the grant. IV—437, 579
A pending application under section 7, act of July 23, 1866, does not
except the land from the operation of a railroad grant and with-
drawal thereunder (on preliminary line). II–548
A donation claim (New Mexico) void on its face (showing settlement
subsequent to the time limited) does not except the land from the
grant (Atlantic and Pacific). II–522
Where the land was reserved for the settler (donation) at date of
definite location (Northern Pacific), it was excepted from the grant.
II–440
Does not take effect upon land held under donation settlement at
date of definite location, though the donee had failed in the matter
of filing notification. I–305
Settlement claims protected under the act of February 8, 1887, will
not be affected by the fact that the land was included within a
grant to another company where such grant was subsequently for-
feited. VIII–377
Under section 2, act of February 8, 1887, lands occupied by actual
settlers at definite location of the road (New Orleans, Baton Rouge
and Vicksburg), and still remaining in their possession, are excepted
from the grant. - VIII–377; x–637
The recognition of the Blanchard-Robinson agreement in section 4,
act of February 8, 1887, is limited to the protection of persons who
on December 1, 1884, were occupying lands to which the company
was entitled (New Orleans and Pacific). X—637
The lands upon which the grant of 1866 would operate were not iden-
tified until the passage of the joint resolution of 1870, which saved
the rights of actual settlers (Southern Pacific). I–626
Joint resolution of June 28, 1870, protects prior settlement within
indemnity limits (Southern Pacific). III–321; V-380
:
ſº
e
.
©
i
º:
:
:
340 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
VIII. LANDS EXCEPTED–Continued.
The right to either granted or indemnity land, of actual settlers, on
June 28, 1870, though settlement was made after withdrawal, was
saved by the joint resolution of that date, authorizing a construc-
tion of the road on the route indicated by the map filed in 1867.
II–559
IX. MINERAL LAND.
The non-mineral character of free odd sections being shown, title
thereto passes under the grant. (Central Pacific.) VIII–30
A hearing to determine the character of land claimed under a railroad
grant, but returned as mineral, will not be allowed in the absence
of application to select and due notice. VIII–30; Ix–613
The discovery, after patent, that the land is of mineral character does
not affect the title taken under the grant. (Central Pacific.) V-193
Land known to be of mineral character prior to the issuance of pat-
ent is excepted from the grant to the Central Pacific. W–193
A decision of the local office holding certain tracts within the granted
limits (Central Pacific) to be non-mineral, after hearing order to
test that question, will be approved in the absence of appeal.
VIII–30
X. INDIAN TITLE.
The Indian title resting in occupancy alone was that which the grant
of July 2, 1864, undertook to extinguish. I–368
A stipulation in the grant of July 2, 1864, with respect to the extinc-
tion of Indian titles, did not include permanent reservations, or
land reserved before the grant was made. I–368
The extinction of Indian title after the right of the road attached will
not inure to the benefit of the grant. IV—429
The “Indian title” referred to in the second section of the grant (North-
ern Pacific) did not include rights protected by technical reserva-
tion. W–138, 343
The fee simple of lands to which the Indian title had not been extin-
guished, along the line of the Northern Pacific, and within the
limits of the grant, passed to said company, subject only to the
right of Indian occupation which the government at its pleasure
could extinguish. VII–10()
Legal subdivisions of odd-numbered sections lying south of Goose
River (which formerly constituted the northern boundary of the
Indian country claimed by the Sisseton and Wahpeton Sioux) in-
ured to the Northern Pacific grant on extinction of the Indian title.
V-670
On the extinguishment of, the withdrawal under the grant becomes
effective, and excludes the acquisition of settlement rights. II–519
XI. RIGHTS OF THE STATE.
The Department will not interfere with the discretion of a State in
disposing of lands granted in aid of internal improvement, W-81
º º
º tº º : :
• * * * *
& * *
... * * * ; : .”.
&
º
• * , e
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 341
XI. RIGHTS OF THE STATE–Continued.
The grant to a State in aid of a railroad is not an absolute convey-
ance, but a trust, and the State, taking as a trustee, is limited in
the execution of the trust to the purposes expressed in the act of
Congress. VIII–37
The location of a road within a State fixes the extent of the grant for
the benefit of the State. III–242
Relinquishment of the State (Minnesota), under its act of March 1,
1877, after selection cuts off the right of the company.
IV-300; VI-128
The granting act of 1856 (Alabama) withheld 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. II–476
Whether the only power of disposal in the State (Alabama) was to
make distribution for quantity to extent of lands earned by a com-
pleted 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 intersecting lines for the benefit of that road only to
which they properly attach, and may apportion lands within inter-
secting lines, as purely a matter of State concern, subject only to
judicial and legislative control ; quaere. II–476
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 specific sections the quantity of land as de-
scribed “may be sold,” and certification was the uniform mode of
identification ; the act of March 3, 1865, requiring patents to issue
upon completion of the sections gave no direction 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 location and identification of the lands by certifica-
tion. II–495
XII. RELINQUISHMENT. (See subtitle, No. XIII.)
The acceptance of the benefits of the State act of March 1, 1877,
imposes upon the company the conditions of said act, and author-
izes a reconveyance by the governor of lands occupied by settlers
at the date of said act (St. Paul, M. and M. Ry. Co.).
VII–184; x-507
By accepting the terms of the State in extending the time for con-
structing the road the company (St. Paul and Pacific) relinquished
claims in favor of actual settlers and authorized the governor to
reconvey such lands to the United States. IV—300, 509; WI-128
342 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
NII. RELINQUISHMENT—Continued.
Lands to which legal title was perfected in the St. Paul and Pacific
company prior to the State act of March 1, 1877, were excepted
from its effect, and a subsequent deed of reconveyance from the
State of such lands would not invest the Department with jurisdic-
tion. IX—509
The State relinquishment of lands granted to the Marquette Company
was an abrogation of the withdrawal of June 13, 1856, and restored
said lands to the public domain. WI–649
The rights of actual settlers within the limits of the grant prior to
March 16, 1881, protected by the relinquishment of the company.
(Florida Railway and Navigation Company.) IX-34
A relinquishment made with full knowledge of the law and facts is
to be regarded as absolute and unconditional, notwithstanding a
reservation in it of the company's right to indemnity; questions
concerning the date of filing the map, the date of withdrawal, or
the right to indemnity, do not affect its validity. II–534, 535
Where the company (Atlantic, Gulf, and West India Transit, now
Peninsular) relinquished certain granted lands in 1875 and 1881 in
favor of actual settlers, they can not be heard to object to the pat-
enting of the settlement claims on said lands. II–531, 564
Where withdrawal for the road (Atlantic, Gulf and West India
Transit Company) was made in 1856, and the map of definite loca-
tion was filed in 1860, but returned for amendment and lost, and a
duplicate map was not approved until 1881, relinquishment is
necessary to protect the rights of settlers initiating claims in viola-
tion of the executive withdrawal of 1856 and of the legislative
withdrawal of 1860. II–561
Relinquishment in favor of actual settlers applies to indemnity limits
as well as to granted. (Atlantic, Gulf, and West India Transit
Co.) III–1S6
Hearings directed where settlers on selected land claim the benefit of
relinquishment (Florida Railway and Navigation Company).
IV–148
Entries and filings allowed on unselected land on prima facie show-
ing that the claim is within the terms of the relinquishment. IV-148
The company given opportunity to contest claim of settlers to the
benefit of the relinquishment. IW–148
The Commissioner of the General Land Office to determine who are
entitled to the benefit of the relinquishment. IV—150
If the fact of a settlement right is conceded, the burden is upon the
company to show that the benefit of the relinquishment has been
waived by subsequent acts (Florida Railway and Navigation Com-
pany). IX-34
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 343
XIII. ACT OF JUNE 22, 1874. (See subtitle No. xII.)
When relinquishment is filed the land is released from all claim of
the company, and Subject to disposal under the general land laws.
VI–716; IX—237
Relinquishment under, when accepted, is at once operative, and the
land covered thereby becomes subject to disposal under the gen-
eral land laws. VII–481
A relinquishment only serves to relieve the entry or filing from a con-
flict that would otherwise defeat the settler's claim. (Overruled,
9 L. D., 237.) III–324
The ability or intention of the settler to perfect his claim does not
affect the operation of the relinquishment. WI–716
Lands released under said act are held in trust by the government
for the settler. I–327
A relinquishment may be made only where the filing or entry (granted
limits) was made under the prečmption or homestead law, not of
land covered by a timber culture entry. II–52S
Lieu selections may be made of either even or odd sections. II–562
The right to a selection depends upon the right to relinquish.
III–459, 504
Indemnity not allowed if the settler's claim is superior to that of the
COmpany. I–359
A relinquishment confers no right, if the land covered thereby was
in fact excepted from the grant. X–264
A selection under said act must be rejected if it appears that the
company had no title or right in the tract relinquished. WI–611
Selections not authorized on relinquishment of indemnity lands to
which the right of the company had not attached.
III–504; Iv–127; VIII–472
Lands within the indemnity limits of a grant do not afford a basis for
relinquishment and selection. X-50, 609
IRecognition by the General Land Office of the right of selection after
relinquishment will not preclude departmental consideration of such
right when the selection comes up for approval. VI–611, 815
Acceptance of relinquishment by the local office does not amount to
an approval of the selections based thereon. VIII–472
Though relinquishment may not be authorized, such fact should not
affect a prior entry made in good faith. VI–820; VII–81
The right of indemnity does not turn upon the legality or illegality
of the entries in question. III–275, 485
The right of relinquishment and selection is confined to entries made
after the rights of the road attach. III–274
A selection of indemnity involves an absolute and unconditional re-
linquishment of the basis. IX—72
Selection not entertained prior to relinquishment of basis. WI–661
344 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
XIII. ACT OF JUNE 22, 1874–Continued.
Right to select not considered in the absence of application for spe-
cific tract. VI-815, 820
A relinquishment of a specified tract (granted limits) properly exe.
cuted by the company (Hastings and Dakota) must be filed before
or concurrently with a lieu selection. II—540
On relinquishment, indemnity is authorized by said act where settle-
ment was made after withdrawal and filing allowed subsequently
to the time When the right of the road attached. VI—292
The land (indemnity limits) was located with scrip (agricultural col-
lege) after withdrawal, and patented; the company (Dubuque and
Sioux City) Inust select it before making relinquishment and lieu
Selection. II—542
A relinquishment under act of June 22, 1874, may not be made of a
tract (indemnity limits) prior to its selection; where entry (home-
stead) is allowed after withdrawal, and the tract is selected, if it
appears that it is needed to satisfy the grant, relinquishment and
lieu selection will be allowed to the company (Hastings and Da-
kota). 4. II–527
Whether entry (homestead) allowed after withdrawal, but before the
State conferred the grant on the company (Hastings and Dakota),
gives right of lieu Selection, quare. II–541
Where relinquishment of granted land and lieu selection were made
after definite location, but before the road (Northern Pacific) was
completed opposite to the tracts relinquished, said selection, of
record, barred subsequent claim (additional homestead). II–530
XIV. ACT OF APRIL 21, 1876.
The protection extended by the act is equally applicable whether the
withdrawal is legislative or executive on general route or definite
location, within granted or indemnity limits. IX—423
Made necessary by the rulings of the Department, and is held man-
datory. W–146
The act covered all cases that had not become final prior to its pas-
Sage. IV—208
Filings and entries made in good faith by actual settlers are the only
claims confirmed by said act. IX—155
A homestead entry allowed under instructions of the General Land
Office, though based on a former entry, now held to be illegal, is
confirmed by said act. I–357
Rights of a prečmption settler on lands within the limits of a grant,
before notice of withdrawal is received at the local office, protected
by said act. IX—423
I)oes not protect a private cash entry, made after the map of general
route was filed, but before notice thereof was received, if the entry-
man was not an actual settler. IX—407
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 345
XIV. ACT OF APRIL 21, 1876—Continued.
A cash entry of lands within withdrawal on general route, made after
the map of such route was filed, but before notice of withdrawal, is
not protected by said act. IX—155
The act protects an entry made after the map of general route (North-
ern Pacific) was filed, but before notice of withdrawal thereunder.
WI–6, 21, 223
Protects a prečmption settlement claim initiated after the map of
general route was filed, but before notice of withdrawal was
received at the local office. WI–223
An entry made within the limits of a grant, when the land was sub-
ject to appropriation under an order of the Department, is pro-
tected by the act. WI–567
The right to a patent, under an entry protected by the act, depends
only on the settler showing due compliance with the law and the
regulations of the Department. WI–567
A prečmption claim initiated before notice of withdrawal on general
route was received, excepts the land from such withdrawal.
VIII–318
Where it appears that a tract is not included in a final order of res-
toration for the reason that the Department regards it as in effect
already restored an entry thereof is confirmed by section one.
- I–353, 354
The confirmatory provisions of section one can not be invoked ex-
cept on behalf of one who was an actual settler prior to the time
notice of withdrawal was received, and has shown due compliance
with law. X-136
Land within a withdrawal is subject to entry in the interval between
its restoration and the suspension of the order therefor. A subse-
Quent entry of such tract is confirmed by section one. I–354
Entry after definite location, but prior to withdrawal therefor, con-
firmed by section one. I–477.
The first section confirms an entry made after the filing of map of
definite location, but before notice of withdrawal. W–144
Settlement made after the right of a railroad company had attached,
ls -- 4 -, --> Av. 4-, +l, a ver, 4-, or of wri + 1 . , in a rºro
l ics sara Far Fre l l exy +1 ~4- ~£ A --~~$1
J U & U p11v1. i U v ii U ii U Ui UVU U L WW I L. Ll Vºl 1. Cºy W.W ov13 1 Nº By 1 v uvvuvu. MJ.y U U ii
iié àCü Öi Api
21, 1876. III–277
Action will not be taken under the first section if patent has issued
for the land involved. IV-344; V-144, 205
Section two takes effect upon all entries that have not been finally
disposed of prior to passage of the act. IV—208
Entry re-instated and held to be confirmed by section two of said act,
though application for repayment had been made after cancella-
tion. I-387
346 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
XIV. ACT OF APRIL 21, 1876—Continued.
Section two of April 21, 1876; three facts are prerequisite to title
thereunder, viz.: 1, a valid claim existing at date of the withdrawal;
2, reëntry under decisions and rulings of the Land Department; 3,
final proof must show full compliance with the law. II–560
Settlement and filing protected by section three of said act, as well
aS an entry. I—333
The third section of this act is not unconstitutional, as it only pro-
tects entries made at a time when Congress might have properly
declared a forfeiture for breach of condition subsequent. WI–427
Under the third section, an entry should not be rejected because of
a prior withdrawal if at the time of such entry the grant had expired.
*.. VI—427
The clause “at a time subsequent to the expiration of such grant,”
in section three, refers to the dates fixed for the completion of the
roads, and not to the date when forfeiture might be declared.
I–333; WI–427; VII–223
The third section confirms entries made within the limits of a grant
after its expiration. VII–223
The status of land entered under the third section is not altered by
a legislative revival of the grant. WI–427
Section three does not include an entry made after the grant has
expired, where the grant is revived and the road constructed in
accordance with the reviving act prior to the passage of the act of
1876. X–306
In the absence of an entry, made under the permission of the Land
Department, the protection accorded by Section three of said act
is not applicable. IX—246
Section three, act of April 21, 1876; entry (homestead) was made
within the conflicting limits of the Coosa and Tennessee and the
Wills Valley portion of the Alabama and Chattanooga Railroads;
no portion of the former road has been completed, and the entry
was made after expiration of the time for completing the latter
road and prior to the extension granted by act April 10, 1869;
held that it is confirmed. II—500
XV. ADJUSTMENT.
Should be adjusted without delay under the act of March 3, 1887.
VI-144
Adjustment of, under the act of March 3, 1887. Opinion of the At.
torney-General as to the construction of sections 3, 4, and 5.
VI–272
Adjustment of, circular of November 22, 1887, issued under the act of
March 3, 1887. VI-276, 544
The construction of a grant, adopted and followed for many years in
its adjustment, becomes a rule of property and should not be
changed. VIII–255
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 347
XV. ADJUSTMENT—Continued.
Directions for the adjustment of selections and settlement claims on
revocation of withdrawal. WI–84
The revocation of certain indemnity withdrawals under the rule of
May 23, 1887, was not intended to suspend adjustment of the
grantS. WI–144
Adjustment of, deferred pending Congressional action. (Florida Ry.
and Navigation Co.) II–561; W-107
A formal declaration of adjustment not necessarily nullified by the
subsequent approval of tracts found to be within the grant. X—610
A railroad company succeeding to the rights and benefits conferred
upon another takes the same subject to the conditions and limita-
tions imposed upon its predecessor. WI–130
Rights of a company claiming as assignee having been determined in
the courts will be recognized by the Department. W–81
The amendatory 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 reservations by Way of prečmption
homestead, or other lawful claims. II–510
Congressional action attaching a further condition to a grant (Pacific
roads), requiring payment for Survey and Selection, prior to the
vesting of title, is upheld by the Supreme court. II–670
Lands not earned by the construction of a fractional part of a ten-
mile section. WI–47, 54
Lands patented on the governor’s certificate under the act of May
12, 1864, for constructed road were earned, though the whole line
of road was not completed. WI–54
No authority for the issuance of patent without governor’s certificate
except on final completion of the road. (Sioux City and St. Paul
Railroad.) WI–47, 54
Certification of lands within the common limits of a completed road
and one not constructed will not be made until the State (the
grantee in trust) indicates the lands belonging properly to the con-
structed road. I–343, 376
In the adjustment of the Ontonagon and Brulé River grant under
the act of forfeiture, the company is only entitled to lands for the
portion of road constructed for the purpose of being used and
maintained as a railroad. IX—227
Title should be conferred for lands earned by construction prior to
the expiration of the grant. I–373
Acceptance of the constructed road, adjustment of the grant, and
issuance of patents finally disposes of any question as to the con-
struction of the road on the line of definite location. WI–54
348 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
XV. AD.JUSTMENT—Continued.
The actual road as located and constructed is the object and measure
of the grant, and with the road thus fixed, lines drawn perpendicu-
lar to it at each end will determine the final limits of the grant.
VI-195
Lateral limits of, determined by the line of definite location. WI–565
The lateral limits of a grant are determined by drawing lines on each
side of the route of the road through a series of points at the pre-
cise distance therefrom of the width of the grant, on tangential
lines to arcs having a radius equal to the width of the grant on each
side of the route. W–468, 551
The order allowing the amendment of the terminal limit of the with-
drawal on definite location of Northern Pacific revoked. III–478
The fixing of a terminal limit is a matter of mathematical ascertain-
ment, and if a correction is necessary to truly represent the grant
on either side of the road, such correction may be made in the
General Land Office. º III–450, 478
Selections not allowed beyond the terminal limits as defined by a line
drawn at right angles with the general route of the road at such
terminus. I–394
The line fixing the terminal limit of the Northern Pacific should be
run at right angles to the general course of the last section. V–459
The words “point of junction,” as used in, designate the place where
two lines of railway meet. W–549
Made for the construction of a road from Portland to Astoria, and
from a point of junction near Forest Grove to McMinnville, was in
effect a grant for the construction of two roads (Oregon Central.)
W–549
By the act of March 3, 1869, the grant in aid of the Denver Pacific
was separated from that made for the Kansas Pacfic, and said
grants must therefore be adjusted separately. VI–385, 581
The grant to Minnesota in aid of a road “from Stillwater, with a
branch via St. Cloud and Crow Wing,” is in effect an entirety and
indivisible (St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba Railway). See 13
L. D., 354. -
VIII–255
For the purposes of boundary and patent the Northern Pacific road
is divided into sections of 25 miles. o W–459
By joint resolution of May 31, 1870, there was conferred upon the
Northern Pacific a grant from Portland to Puget Sound.
VI-400, 409
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, quare. II–860
DIGFST OF LAND DECISIONS. 349
XV. ADJUSTMENT—Continued.
Plan of adjustment adopted in the matter of settlement claims in con-
flict with the Northern Pacific grant, on the northern boundary of
the former Sisseton and Wahpeton Sioux “Indian country.”
V-670
Failure of the company (Northern Pacific) to pay for the survey
raises only a question as to delivery of title. W–343
Though survey of the land within specified limits may be directed by
the grant, there is no authority therefor in the absence of an appro-
priation to cover the expense. (Atlantic and Pacific.) WI–84
There is no authority in the Department to accept or use a deposit
advanced by the company to cover the cost of a survey for the iden-
tification of lands subject to the grant. (Atlantic and Pacific.)
WI–84
Under the joint resolution of April 10, 1869, the Central Pacific be-
came entitled to the granted lands between Ogden and Promon-
tory Summit. W–661
The act of June 20, 1874, was passed in the interest of commerce and
transportation and did not affect the grant of lands to the Union
Pacific. VI—385
The status of certain lands selected by the Western Pacífic opposite
the first completed Section. W–277
The phrase “sold or disposed of.” occurring in section 3, act of July
1, 1862, considered and construed (Sioux City and Pacific). I-345
Title to the Western Pacific Company (and its successors), assignees
of the Central Pacific, did not pass as of date of act March 3, 1865,
which was merely a ratification of the assignment. II–479
The Central Pacific assigned to the Western Pacific the right to con-
struct the road between San José and Sacramento, and Congress
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 rat-
ification. II–479
As the company (St. Paul and Pacific) did not accept the conditions
imposed by the act of June 22, 1874, said act did not become effect-
ive as against the company, or confer any rights upon settlers prior
theretO. v–145; Ix—246
The grant in aid of the St. 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 certify 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.
II–502
Both in the title and the body of the acts of 1856, and 1864, the terms
“land” and “public land” are used interchangeably (Wisconsin).
WI–195
350 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
|XV. ADJUSTMENT—Continued.
Hudson held as the terminus of the Omaha road; construction be.
yond that point confers no right (Wisconsin). VI—195
The grant of June 3, 1856, is not repealed by the act of May 5, 1864,
only to the extent that the later act destroys the continuity of
the line provided for, or made possible, under the former grant.
X–63
The grant to the Oregon Central was not limited to lands in the State
of Oregon. v1–292, 677
The deduction required from the lands granted by the act of July 27,
1866, in So far as the road located thereunder was upon the same
line as that provided for in the grant of 1852, should be made from
the aggregate amount of the later grant (Atlantic and Pacific).
VIII–165
The New Orleans, Baton Rouge and Vicksburg Company, its mort.
gagees or bondholders, have no standing in the Department to
object to the issuance of patents to the New Orleans and Pacific,
if the latter company has complied with the act of 1887. VIII–25
The grant to the New Orleans and Pacific took effect when the Sec.
retary of the Interior was notified that the company had accepted
the provisions of February 8, 1887, and attendant obligations.
VIII–25
The Department must issue patents to the New Orleans and Pacific
whenever due compliance is shown with the act of February 8,
1887. * V—593
Instructions under the act of February 8, 1887, with respect to the New
Orleans and Pacific Railroad claiming under the grant to the New
Orleans, Baton Rouge and Vicksburg Railroad Company. V–686
The act of July 2, 1864, for the benefit of the Burlington and Mis-
souri River Railroad, in Nebraska, contemplated that one-half of
the land granted should be taken on each side of the road, and did
not authorize enlarging the quantity on One side to make up for
deficiencies on the other. WI–589
The lands taken in excess on the north side of the line (B. & M., in
Nebraska) may be identified by adjusting the grant so that the
company will receive nowhere along the line lands to the north of
a line parallel with the line of the road, south of which any lands
subject to the grant may remain unselected. VI-589
The Burlington and Missouri River Railroad in Nebraska, is entitled
to lands for the length of the original line to a point where it will
meet a line drawn on the plat perpendicular to it from the present
terminus at Kearney. WI–589
In the adjustment of the grant (B. & M., in Nebraska), under the
joint resolution of 1870, the length of the line must be computed
on the definite location made prior to passage of said resolution.
WI–589
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 351
XV. ADJUSTMENT—Continued.
The State (Alabama) is entitled to have certification of certain lands
granted June 3, 1856, lying within the intersecting lines of a com-
pleted and of an uncompleted road, for the purpose of identifica-
tion, leaving questions of reversionary right to be declared on by
Congress. II–475
The revival of the grant in aid of the Alabama and Chattanooga
Railroad Company did not relieve it from the limitations originally
provided for the disposition of the granted lands. I–345
The State (Alabama), as trustee, must determine what lands the com-
pany shall receive in case of conflicting limits and where one road
is not constructed, and the Department has no authority to direct
the State in such matter. - I–345, 374
The number of roads provided for in the grant of June 3, 1856 (Ala-
bama), being considered, it is held that said grant contemplated a
road from Gadsden through the Chatooga Valley to the Georgia
and Tennessee line. VIII–33
XVI. FORFEITURE.
Lands granted do not revert after condition broken, until a forfeit.
ure has been declared, either through judicial proceedings or legis-
lative enactment. 1–345; V–81; VIII–589; x–317
The Department can not enforce forfeiture though the company has
not complied with the terms of the grant. I–328
A provision that all lands not disposed of within three years after
the completion of the road shall be subject to settlement as other
lands (the purchase price to be paid to the company) is a condition
subsequent, and default therein does not defeat the grant. I–345
Completion of road within time allowed is a condition subsequent of
which no one can take advantage except the grantor. I–360
Patent can not be refused on the ground that the road was not com-
pleted within the time required by the granting act. I–378
Failure to construct road within the time named does not defeat, in
the absence of forfeiture through the action of Congress or the
COurtS. f v–81, 511
of declaration of forfeiture, patents must issue for granted lands
along the constructed line and indemnity selections therefor.
(Wisconsin Central.) . . WI–190
No authority conferred upon the Department to enforce the last
clause in section 3, act of July 1, 1862 (Sioux City and Pac.). 1–345
The grant to the California and Oregon Railroad Company having
expired, further selections are not allowed pending legislative
action as to forfeiture. III–604
Selections not received where the road was not constructed within the
required period (California and Oregon). I—330
352 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
XVI. FORFEITURE–Continued.
The Central Pacific (successors to the California and Oregon) Com-
pany have failed to complete their road in the prescribed time
(July 1, 1880), but as Congress has not declared the consequent
forfeiture provided in the granting act, patents must issue for the
granted lands, as they are earned by the construction and accept-
ance of a portion of the road. II–489
The additional provision that, on failure to complete the road (Cen.
tral Pacific) in the prescribed time, the granting “act shall be null
and Void,” adds nothing to the legal effect of the forfeiture clause.
II–491
If the whole of the proposed road has not been completed, any for-
feiture thereon can only be asserted by the grantor the United
States, through judicial proceedings or through the action of Con-
greSS. II–491.
No proceedings can be taken, even by Congress, to declare a forfeit-
ure of the Northern Pacific grant until one year after the time fixed
for the completion of the road (July 4, 1880). II–859
The failure of Congress to take action, though its attention has been
called to the fact that large tracts of land are reserved by with-
drawals for uncompleted roads, is accepted 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 grant must be
held intact) shall be a guide to the Secretary in administering the
law. II–549
Forfeiture of, and circular order as to restoration under the act of
January 13, 1881. r—165
Under the act of January 31, 1885, no lands were forfeited along that
part of the road constructed (Oregon). IV—15
The forfeiture of the Texas Pacific grant included lands along the
branch line of time Southern Pacific where it passes through lands
withdrawn for the former company. IV—215
Act of forfeiture (Oregon Central) executed by adjusting separately,
at the point of junction, the limits of the two roads included in
said act. W–549
Title under the grant not defeated by the failure of the company
(Northern Pacific) to pay for the survey. W–343
The forfeiture of the grant to the Atlantic and Pacific did not re-in-
vest the Southern Pacific with the interest of which it was divested
by the definite location of the Atlantic and Pacific. WI–349
The act of June 28, 1884, forfeited the grant to the Iron Mountain
road and confirmed entries allowed for lands within said grant.
WI–443
Actual rights acquired by construction of road not affected by the
Congressional forfeiture (Oregon Central). W–549
L) IGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 353
XVI. FORFEITURE–Continued.
Adjustment of conflicting rights under the act of July 6, 1886, for-
feiting the grant of the Atlantic and Pacific. V-269
The forfeiture of the grant of June 3, 1856, by the act of July 14,
1870, rendered the lands embraced therein at once subject to set-
tlement. X–637
Lands of the Texas Pacific forfeited grant restored to entry. III–450
Order restoring to entry the lands of the forfeited Texas Pacific
should include certain lands along the branch line of the Southern
Pacific where it passes through the limits of the former. III–472
Not a declaration of forfeiture to restore to the public domain lands
certified back by the State as unearned under the grant. VI-162
XVII. CERTIFICATION AND PATENT. (See Patent.)
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. II–496
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 offintervening claims. II–497
Where title (to granted or indemnity lands in Minnesota) passed by
certification, all control of the Executive Department over the title
thereafter ceased. II–497, 498
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. II–492
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. II–497
Title does not pass by certification, under the grant of March 3, 1865.
(Reversed, 2 L. D., 498.) I–366
Patent required to pass title under the grant of July 4, 1866, to the
State of Minnesota. (Reversed, 2 L. D., 492.) I-351
Railroad Lands.
I. GENERALLY.
II. ACT of MARCH 3, 1887.
I. GENERALLY.
Land within the limits of a grant, but excepted therefrom, is open to
entry without restoration notice. IX-213
Certain lands in Washington Territory withdrawn for the Northern
Pacific, restored to entry. W–193
Within New Mexico formerly granted to the Atlantic and Pacific
Railroad Company restored to public domain and opened to entry
at double minimum. W–269
10464—23
354 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
I. GENERALLY-Continued.
The forfeited lands in conflicting limits (Atlantic and Pacific and
Southern Pacific) withheld from entry pending adjustment. V–269
Under the adjustment made necessary by the act of forfeiture of Jan-
uary 31, 1885, the lands lying within the quadrant formed by the
limit lines north of Forest Grove, must be restored to the public
domain. W–549
Circular provisions of April 30, 1887, as to settlers within the grant
to the State of Kansas to aid in the construction of the Northern
Kansas Railroad. W–627
Unearned lands relinquished by the State (Iowa) restored to the pub-
lic domain. VI–47, 162
Restored to the public domain as unearned under the grant.
v1–47, 162
Plan of restoration suggested in the case of the forfeited lands within
the common limits of the Atlantic and Pacific and Southern Pa-
Clific. WI–349
Unpatented lands within the granted limits of the Atlantic and Pa-
cific and the granted and indemnity limits of the Southern Pacific
restored to settlement and entry. WI–816
Certain unpatented selections (B. and M. in Nebraska) canceled, and
lands restored to the public domain. WI–589
Certain, under former withdrawals for the Union Pacific at Denver,
restored December 7, 1887. WI–385
Applications for indemnity lands, restored under the rule of May 23,
1887. Circular of September 6, 1887. WI–131
Proceedings directed for the vacation of certain patents erroneously
issued to the Southern Pacific for lands excepted from its grant by
conflict with the prior grant to the Atlantic and Pacific. VI–816
Suit advised to vacate patents issued to the Union Pacific for lands
south of the terminus of the Denver Pacific, at Denver, and west
of the terminus of the Kansas Pacific, at the same place.
VI-385, 581
Circular of April 30, 1886, under the act of January 13, 1881, with
respect to settlement rights on lands restored to settlement and
entry. W–165
The right of purchase under the act of January 13, 1881, must be
exercised within three months after restoration. IX–74
The right of purchase under the act of January 13, 1881, extends only
to lands that have been withdrawn and Subsequently restored.
WI–750
Land excepted from a railroad grant and consequently not withdrawn
for its benefit not subject to purchase under the act of January 13,
1881. VIII–344
Right of purchase conferred by the act of January 13, 1881, can only
be exercised by an actual settler, and does not extend to lands
excepted from a withdrawal X—437
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 355
I. GENERALLY-Continued.
Purchaser under the act of January 13, 1881, must show actual set-
tlement, and that he can not acquire title under the prečmption,
homestead, or timber-culture law. VIII–344
Applicant for the preference right of purchase under section 2, act of
January 31, 1885, must show that he is an actual settler. VI-677
Preference right to restored lands under the act of January 31, 1885,
accorded to settler. IV-15
One temporarily occupying land as the employé of another is not an
actual settler under the act of January 31, 1885. VI—677
Purchasers of certain lands in the vicinity of Denver authorized by
the act of August 13, 1888, to enter said lands at government price.
X—437
II. ACT OF MARCH 3, 1887.
Opinion of Attorney-General Garland on the proper construction of
sections 3, 4, and 5. WI–272
Circular instructions issued November 22, 1887, and modification
thereof. VI-276, 544
Circular instructions of February 13, 1889, under the act of March 3,
1887. VIII–348
Procedure preliminary to suit under the act of March 3, 1887. x–610
On adjustment of, demand to be made under act of March 3, 1887,
for reconveyance of any lands improperly passed under the grant.
WI–54
Demand for reconveyance under the act of March 3, 1887, will not
be made until after notice to the company to show cause why pro-
ceedings should not be instituted under said act. WI–544
The act of March 3, 1887, is mandatory upon the Secretary of the
Interior to demand reconveyance, if the grant is unadjusted, and
lands have been erroneously certified or patented. IX—649
It is the duty of the Secretary of the Interior to readjudicate cases
whenever it appears that the prečimption or homestead entry of a
bona fide settler has been erroneously canceled on account of a
railroad grant. VIII–318, 382
The act is remedial and should be construed liberally in favor of the
bona fide settler. VIII–324
Plea of res judicata can not be interposed to relieve the company
from proceedings under the act. VIII–318
The Department can not consider the fact that the lands have passed
into the hands of a bona fide purchaser in directing suit under
the act of March 3, 1887. IX—221; X—54
It is no defense to an action under the act of March 3, 1887, that the
certification was in accordance with existing rulings of the Depart-
ment, if such rulings are in conflict with the decision of the su-
preme court. IX—649
356 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
II. ACT OF MARCH 3, 1887–Continued.
A judicial decree awarding possession to a purchaser from the com-
pany will not prevent the Department from taking jurisdiction
under said act. VIII–382
Proceedings for the recovery of title under the act of March 3, 1887,
not authorized, where, long prior to said act, the grant had been
declared, by competent authority, to be adjusted. X-610
In order to sustain a suit under said act it is necessary to show that
the land has been erroneously certified or patented under the grant.
VIII–570
Suit advised for the recovery of unearned lands held by the State of
Iowa for the benefit of the Sioux City and St. Paul Railroad.
VI–481
Action directed under the act of March 3, 1887, for the recovery of
title to lands improperly patented to the Burlington and Missouri
River Railroad in Nebraska. VI-589
Taken as indemnity under the act of June 22, 1874, in the absence of
legal basis subject to recovery under the act of 1887. IX—649
The act of March 3, 1887, authorizes proceedings to set aside an erro-
neous certification, where, at the date thereof, the land was cov-
ered by a settlement claim that excepted it from the confirmatory
act of March 3, 1871 (Des Moines River lands). IX—637
A certification of land excepted from the grant is erroneous, and war-
rants proceedings for the recovery of title. X–54, 568, 575
Proceedings for the recovery of title should be instituted under the
act of March 3, 1887, in the case of certified lands opposite the un-
completed portion of the Marquette, Houghton and Ontonagon
Railroad. X—29
Suit to set aside patent advised where issued for lands excepted by
reason of preemption claim existing at withdrawal on general route
and definite location (Central Pacific). & X–466
Covered by homestead entries at date of definite location are “errone.
ously ’’ certified, and subject to recovery under the act of March 3,
1887. IX–649
Proceedings authorized under the act of March 3, 1887, for the recov-
ery of lands erroneously certified. X—166
Certification of lands, selected in lieu of indemnity lands relinquished
under the act of June 22, 1874, is erroneous, and proceedings for
the recovery of title should be instituted. x–50, 609
Applicants for the right of purchase must show under oath the facts
of settlement, improvement, and requisite qualifications. WI–750
The act entitles a settler to perfect a homestead entry for the entire
tract originally applied for notwithstanding the issuance of patent
to him under the homestead law for a part of Said tract. VIII–382
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 357
II. ACT OF MARCH 3, 1887–Continued.
If part of an entry has been erroneously canceled on account of a
railroad grant, it should, under this act, be re-instated, and patent
issued thereon if the settler has shown due compliance with law.
VIII–318
Section 3 of said act authorizes re-adjudication where an application
to file or enter has been erroneously rejected by the local office.
VIII–382
The right to re-instatement conferred upon the settler is superior to
that of a bona fide purchaser from the company. VIII–382
The right to re-instatement under said act is defeated by a voluntary
abandonment of the claim before the grant attached. VIII–588
A relinquishment executed on notice that the entry had been sus-
pended is not such a “voluntary’ abandonment as will bar rein-
statement under the act. VIII–324
“Bona fide purchasers of unclaimed lands,” referred to in section 3,
act of March 3, 1887, defined. VI—272
Plea of res judicata will not bar re-instatement under section 3, act of
March 3, 1887, if the entry was erroneously canceled on account of
a railroad grant. X—307
Abandonment of land under a decision of the local office, is not the
“voluntary abandonment " that precludes re-instatement of the
entry under section 3, act of March 3, 1887. x–264, 307
Section 4 of the act of March 3, 1887, confers a preference right upon
purchasers in good faith from the company. VIII–570
The right to issue patent under section 4, act of March 3, 1887, does
not arise until the land shall have been legally determined to belong
to the United States. VI—272
The right of purchase under section 4, act of March 3, 1887, given to
the bona fide purchaser from a railroad company extends only to
cases where the land was erroneously certified or patented to the
COmpany. IX—199
The right of purchase under section 5, act of March 3, 1887, extends
to indemnity lands as well as those within the granted limits.
WI–272
Limitations of the right of purchase under section 5, act of March 3,
1887, specified. WI–272
The right of the purchaser under section 5, act of March 3, 1887, is
defeated by the settlement of another made after December 1, 1882,
whether the purchase was made before or after said date. WI–750
The existence of a settlement right acquired after December 1, 1882,
defeats the right of a purchaser from the company. IX—199
Method of procedure and proof required under application for the
right of purchase as provided in section 5, act of March 3, 1887.
VIII–27, 348
358 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
Receiver. (See Land Department.)
Records. (See Evidence.)
Papers belonging to the permanent files of the General Land Office
may not be returned to the parties filing the same. W–258
An attorney in good standing before the Land Department, prior to
filing his appearance in a case, but preliminary thereto, is entitled
to inspect the record, and all papers on which action has been
taken affecting the rights of the parties. W–400
A stranger may not inspect the papers in a case in the General Land
Office, except as the attorney of record. II–222
Where the documents in evidence in the General Land Office are ori-
ginal and properly belong elsewhere, especially when they are not
yet properly before the Commissioner, they may be withdrawn after
copies are made. II–651
The proper examination or use of the plats and other public records
in the local offices is not prohibited by law, and should not be
denied except where it will interfere unnecessarily with the public
business. II–197, 656
Registers and receivers of other than consolidated offices may not
furnish abstracts from the records for private use and charge there-
for, except in the case of plats and diagrams. II—655
Register. (See Land Department.
Rehearing. (See Practice.)
Re-instatement. (See Entry.)
Relation.
The doctrine of, can only be invoked to preserve a right, not to cre-
ate One. IV-117; VI—100; x–464.
Relinquishment.—(See Application, subtitle No. X; Railroad Grant,
subtitles XII and XIII.) When filed is equivalent to cancellation under
the act of May 14, 1880. I–122
When filed operates eo instanti to release the land from the entry.
III–343; IV—123, 188, 196, 506; VII–561; x–139
Takes effect immediately on filing, notwithstanding a pending con-
test, and opens the land to the entry of the first legal applicant,
which is subject, however, to the preferred right of the successful
Contestant. II–266, 283, 313, 619
Should be received when presented and entry canceled. W–451
After relinquishment the land is subject to the first legal application.
III–320
Takes effect of the date when filed, though action thereon may be
delayed pending proof required as to the identity of the party exe-
cuting the Same. WI–579
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 359
Relinquishment—Continued.
Held for examination and found valid, relates back to date of its
filing, and the application with it is the first legal application. II–324
Can not be made of a fraudulent entry. (See 2 L. D., 316.) II–92
Is effective whether the entry is valid or invalid, and operates at
once to Open the land. II-316; IV—449
The summary action authorized by the first section of the act of May
14, 1880, not to be taken where there is a pending adverse right.
I–156
Effectually divests the entryman of all claims under the entry.
III–468; IV-29, 587; VIII–606
One who applies to relinquish and take another tract, on the ground
of mistake in the first entry, is estopped from claiming any right
thereunder as against another who, with knowledge of such facts,
Settles on said land and files therefor. X-279
The voluntary maker of a, must abide the consequences of the act.
III–181
Ineffectual so far as releasing the land until filed.
III–224; WI–246; IX—445
Made by the entryman after he has parted with his interest in the
land is null and void. VI—512; VIII–641
Will not defeat the right of a prior purchaser holding under sale of
the final certificate. IX–97
Made by the entryman after mortgaging the land will not defeat the
right of the mortgagee to show that the entryman was entitled to
patent. VIII–618
Transmitted by mail, is to be regarded as filed at the moment it was
received at the local office (9 a. m.), though the letter transmitting
it was not opened for some time afterwards; timber-culture appli-
cation accompanying it is to be similarly regarded. II–326
Must be intentionally and voluntarily made; one obtained through
misrepresentation, deceit, or duress, is void.
II–135; III-376; IV—281; VIII–192
Obtained while the entryman (timber-culture) was in a drunken
stupor is fraudulent; application for reinstatement of entry is
allowed. II–325
Not voluntary when made because of conflict and to avoid a contest.
I–45
Executed for use only in the event of certain contingencies and left in
the possession of the entryman’s agent is of no legal effect. IX-609
Failure of local officers to promptly act upon, will not prejudice the
rights of a subsequent applicant for the land involved. X–673
Refusal of local office to act upon, should be followed up by appeal
to preserve rights claimed thereunder. IV—532
Improperly rejected on account of form in the matter of acknowledg-
ment. III–546
360 - DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
Relinquishment—Continued.
Purchaser of, acquires no right to the land as against the United
States. II–133; WI–246; VII–560; IX-269
It is competent for the Department to investigate the circumstances
attending the execution and filing of. V–365
Of the preferred right of entry when purchased may be filed without
specific authority from the contestant. W–294
Of the contestant's preferred right of entry leaves the land open to
the first legal applicant (see Contestant, subtitle No. II). V–293
Of land covered by a preemption filing is a waiver of claim under the
filing, and thereupon another's settlement made prior to the relin-
Quishment takes effect. II–620
Accompanied by an application to enter cuts out a settler on the land.
IV-123; V–149
Accompanied by declaratory statement defeats simultaneous appli-
cation to Contest. Iv–363; x–139
Of entryman offered with application under a different law should
be received and application allowed subject to adverse claims.
V–451
On relinquishment of a homestead entry, the settlement of a prior
settler, applying for homestead entry seven days after the relin-
quishment takes effect under section 3, act of May 14, 1880. II–117
Filed with an application to enter, returned because the deposit for
fees and commissions was insufficient, should perhaps not have
been returned with the application, but should have been made of
record, so as to open the land to entry. II–278
Filing of, will not disturb acquired adverse rights. IV—505
May not be attacked for want of genuineness by a party who does
not establish the whereabouts and identity of the entryman.
III–593
The failure of a contestant to pay to the claimant (prečmption) an
alleged contract consideration for his relinquishment, duly filed,
will not be considered. II–621
Filed by a contestant will secure the right of entry, though the con-
test may fail on the grounds alleged in the affidavit of contest. V–5
Executed, but not filed, is not proof of abandonment of a homestead.
II–28
For value, about a month after entry (timber-culture), is proof of
fraudulent inception of the entry. II–92
Of desert entry should be followed by immediate cancellation, and
the land opened to entry without further action.
v–708; V1–1; VII–227; VIII–371,605; X–673
Of timber-culture entry must be signed by the heirs in case of entry-
man's death. 1–121, 136, 149
Of a timber-culture entry by the executor and sole devisee Warrants
cancellation where it appears that compliance with the law can not
be shown within the life of the entry. VII–383
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 361
Relinquishment—Continued.
Of timber-culture entry exhausts the right of the entryman, and he
can not be permitted to enter a second tract. I—125
Of homestead entry may be executed by administrator, under direc-
tion of the court, on the finding of fact that no heirs exist qualified
to succeed to the rights of the deceased. WI–672
Executed by entryman's father as agent, and left with him for subse-
quent filing, but not filed until after the entryman's death; the law
casts the homestead right on the widow, who was entitled to the
land, unless she actually or constructively ratified the relinquish-
ment; ratification may be shown by failure to take possession of
or improve the land, or give notice to the government of her inten-
tion to claim it, and by silence whilst another begins settlement
and improvement. II–138
Of a timber or stone claim prior to final proof, confers no right on
the party obtaining and filing it. II–333
Filed pending contest, and as the result thereof, inures to the benefit
of the Contestant. I–145; III–225; IV-127, 587; VIII-400
Does not inure to the benefit of a contestant unless it be found that
it was the result of the contest. VIII–357
If filed pending contest before local office, and before the testimony
is closed, it inures to the benefit of the contestant. I–103, 155
When filed before the final disposition of a contest it should be treated
as proof of abandonment, and the case closed. I–156
Filed pending and as the result of a contest (before the local officers)
clears the record, and no further evidence in the contestant's be-
half is required. II-265, 311, 318, 619
Filed pending contest is presumptively the result thereof, though such
presumption may be overcome. II-283; VII-442; Ix–440, 461
Inures to the benefit of the contestant, if the result of the contest,
though the charge as laid therein may be insufficient. X-105
Filed prior to day of trial in a pending contest (for illegal inception)
may be taken as an admission of the charge. II-291
Filed with notice of pedding application and contest, is in aid of the
latter. IV- 455
Filed, is in aid of pending suit charging sale thereof. IV-522
May inure to the benefit of second contestant, if the first contest is
shown to be fraudulent. IV—504
Filed after the final dismissal of a contest does not inure to the bene-
fit of the contestant, II–282; V1–236
Made after affidavit of contest is filed, but before notice issued thereon,
and without knowledge of said contest, does not inure to the
benefit thereof. k VII–46
Not the result of a contest when made before, and filed after, the
proper dismissal thereof. IV—413
Obtained and filed by stranger to contest, and subsequent thereto,
of no avail to contestant. I–103
362 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
Relinquishment—Continued.
Filed pending contest does not defeat the right of the contestant to
be heard on the charge as laid. IV-505
VIII–357; Ix—269, 440, 461; x–256, 302, 398
Has no effect on the right of the contestant if its aid is not invoked
by him. IX—440
Repayment. $
Right to, not recognized in the absence of express statutory author-
ity. V-114, 316; VII-295; VIII–102, 462; Ix–49, 62; x–12
Laws providing for, applicable where the consideration is carried
into the Treasury as cash. I–533
Right to, not saved because payment was made under protest.
II–688; III-555
Where it appears that money has been received by the government
through error or mistake it should be returned. III–69
Should be allowed if “from any cause ’’ the entry was erroneously
allowed and no fraud appears. I–526, 532
Only allowed where title can not be given. Iv–187, 293; VIII–462
Allowed where entry can not be confirmed in its entirety. V-527
Construction of the phrase “ erroneously allowed ” in the act of June
16, 1880. II–694; VII–509
Entry is not “erroneously allowed" if obtained by false testimony.
IX—103
The fact that the acts of the entryman contributed to or caused the
erroneous entry ought not, under the statute, to deprive him of the
remedy where he has acted in good faith. III–520; VII–509
An entry allowed by the local office on testimony afterwards rejected
as insufficient by the General Land Office and the Department is
an entry “erroneously allowed, ” for which repayment may be
accorded in the absence of bad faith. VIII–423
May be accorded in case of a homestead entry “erroneously allowed,”
of Alabama lands reported “valuable for coal,” prior to the act of
1883, and not subsequently offered. LX–643
A timber-land entry made on proof prematurely submitted is an entry
“ erroneously allowed.” IX—611
May be accorded under a timber-land entry “erroneously allowed "
without requiring the claimant to proceed with his application as
against an intervening claim. HX—611
Upon application for repayment the land must be relinquished; the
Land Department will not act on a conditional relinquishment, nor
without full compliance by the applicant with the terms of the
act. II–429
Relinquishment accompanying an application for, does not defeat the
right of. X-34
Right of, not impaired by relinquishment filed under the advice of
the General Land Office. - VIII–423
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 363
Repayulent—Continued.
The law authorizing repayment does not provide for return of the
money to persons who have voluntarily abandoned or relinquished
their entries. II–692
Where one, who on filing application furnished proof of desert-land
character, relinquished the tract voluntarily, and asked repayment
on the ground that it was not desert land, he is estopped by his
proofs from denying its character; repayment denied. II–693
Should not be denied on the ground that the entry was “voluntarily
relinquished,” when the relinquishment was accepted “without
prejudice,” under a decision that the government could not give
title to the land entered. WI–334
Not allowed on voluntary relinquishment where the entry is not erro-
neously allowed and is susceptible of confirmation.
1–529, 531; V-527
Not allowed on relinquishment made for the sole purpose of recover-
ing the purchase money where the entry may be confirmed. I-40
Not allowed in case of patent, prior to deed of relinquishment duly
recorded in the proper office of registration where the land is sit-
uated. IV–293
Not allowed for entry relinquished on account of untillable charac-
ter of land, where the entry is made without actual knowledge of
the character of the land. IV—133
The transferee holding the present interest in the land to which title
has failed is the party entitled to. VIII–636
Fees paid on homestead or timber-culture entries, canceled for con-
flict or because they have been erroneously allowed and can not
be confirmed, will no longer be credited upon new entries, but will
be repaid on proper application, as prescribed in office circular of
August 6, 1880. II–661; x–469
Application for, should be made when second entry is allowed, instead
of asking credit on second entry for fees paid on first. VIII–239
Of fees and commissions allowed where entry was canceled because
it was made on land which was occupied and improved by another.
II–117
Where the entry was a second entry (timber-culture) and illegally
made, but at date thereof the local officers were ignorant of the
prior entry, repayment of fees and commissions is refused. II-682
Of fees and commissions allowed where entry (timber-culture) could
not be amended because of intervening adverse rights. II–255
Allowed for fees and commissions charged on additional homestead
entries made under the act of March 3, 1879. - I–525.
Of fees improperly collected for taking testimony should be made to
the principal and not to the attorney. III—125
Fees improperly received for taking testimony to be returned to the
person paying the same. III–160
364 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
Repayment—Continued.
Of final proof fees improperly collected and paid into the Treasury
can not be allowed. IX-60
Of half the fees paid by a railroad company on list of selections where
certified for the joint benefit of two companies denied. III–410
Where selections were made by the railroad company (North and
South Alabama) under act of June 22, 1874, but rejected because
the odd Sections whereon based were disposed of before definite
location, repayment of fees and commissions may be made. II–681
Not allowed for alleged double minimum excess paid for land in rail-
road limits where the price is enhanced prior to the claimant's set-
tlement. I–524
Where the local officers erroneously sold double minimum land at the
minimum price, and on demand the purchaser declined to pay the
additional price, since entry was erroneously allowed and can not
be confirmed, he may have repayment on compliance with circular
requirements. II–679
Certain lands (San Francisco district) were withdrawn for a railroad
(Central Pacific), but were excepted from the grant, and prior to
restoration were embraced by another grant (Southern Pacific),
but were excepted from it also ; the odd sections were ordered to be
sold at minimum and the even sections at double minimum, and
the applicant bought at the double minimum price; he can not have
repayment. II–679, 680
There is no provision for the repayment of the excess where the lands,
reduced by section 3, act of June 15, 1880, were subsequently sold
at double minimum price. II–677
Of the excess over minimum paid for railroad lands which lie within
the exterior limits of a grant (Northern Pacific), but which do not
pass by it because they form part of a reservation (Bitter Root
Valley), is not within the intention of the relief provided by the
act of June 16, 1880. II–675
Where lands are purchased at double minimum while within the
granted limits as fixed by the general route, and are afterwards
left outside of said limits by the definite location, repayment of
excess may be made. II–676
Allowed for double minimum excess paid on land afterwards found
not to be within the limits of a railroad grant. V–437
In case of double minimum excess, paid for land subsequently found
not to be within the limits of a railroad grant, the excess may be
repaid without waiting for the approval of the entry for patent.
WI–383
No authority for the return of the excess where the land was improp-
erly sold as double minimum. V–316
Allowed in case double minimum price has been paid for land after-
wards found not to be within the limits of a railroad grant. VII–2
*.
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 365.
Repayment—Continued.
May be allowed of double minimum excess erroneously charged for
land reduced in price by the act of March 2, 1889. VIII–583
Not allowed on claim of excess, where double minimum price was
paid for lands within the Texas Pacific grant prior to the act of
March 2, 1889. VIII–530
Though not allowed for excess over single minimum rate, when the
land was properly held double minimum at date of initial desert
entry but was subsequently reduced in price by statute, credit for
such excess may be given on completion of the entry. IX—429
Where a desert-land applicant failed for three years to comply with
the requirements of the law (reclamation, alleging inability to ob-
tain water), and relinquished voluntarily, repayment of the pur-
chase money (first installment) is denied. II–691
Of the first installment paid under a desert entry, not allowed in the
absence of due showing that the failure to perfect entry was not
the fault of the entryman. IX—670
Of the first installment paid on a desert entry not allowed on the
ground that water can not be obtained for irrigation if no effort
toward reclamation is shown. X-12
Allowed where a tract forming a part of a desert entry is relinquished
because non-irrigable; the entry having been made in good faith
and prior to survey. WI–665.
Desert land entry allowed on insufficient evidence of reclamation, is
an entry “ erroneously allowed,” and if subsequently relinquished
on account of inability to show reclamation, repayment may be
allowed in the absence of bad faith. VIII–491
Can not be allowed for the excess over single minimum paid on a
desert entry within railroad limits, though the land was held at
said rate at the date of initial entry. g IX—49
Where the entry (commuted homestead) was canceled for laches or
fraud of the entryman, exhibited in his final proofs, repayment of
purchase money is denied. II–686
Will not be allowed if the entry is canceled on account of its fraudu-
lent character or because it was Secured through false testimony.
1–528, 535; 11–598; v-319; virt–322; Ix–103; x–553
One who procures an entry through false testimony is not entitled
to ; and a transferee under such an entry has no better right than
the entryman. VIII–140
Where hearing was ordered on allegations impeaching the good faith
of the entryman (prečmption), and on default by him, the entry
was canceled on the evidence, repayment is refused. II–690
Not allowed where a false oath is made as to the matters required in
section 2262, Revised Statutes, as forfeiture of the purchase money
is a statutory result. II–683, 685; Ix—160
366 DIGEST of LAND DECISIONS.
*
Repayment—Continued.
Where a prečmptor had made final proof, and (it transpiring that he
had also made a homestead claim during the life of his prečmption)
afterwards relinquished it, since the entry was not canceled through
fault of the government, repayment of purchase money is denied.
II–684
May be allowed if the entry is canceled for the insufficiency of the
proof where there was no fraud or concealment and the local officers
held the proof sufficient. III–518; VII–474, 509; Ix—259
In the absence of fraud, may be allowed, where an entry is canceled
for failure to comply with the law as to residence. WI–694
May be allowed when it is impracticable for the claimant to comply
with an order requiring new final proof, and good faith is apparent.
X-34
May be allowed where commutation proof, made in good faith, is
found insufficient in the matter of residence, and the entryman
not being able to show further compliance, relinquishes his claim
to the land. - VIII–162,423
Right of, recognized where the entry was allowed on final proof irreg-
ularly submitted, and the entryman can not make new proof as
required. VIII–636
Can not be allowed to one who voluntarily commutes his entry and
then claims that his final proof shows that he was entitled to pat-
ent without payment. VII-295
Not authorized by the fact that the homesteader is entitled to take
the land under section 2291, Revised Statutes, if he elects to make
cash entry. IX—261
With the right to thereafter submit ordinary homestead proof, can
not be allowed to one whose commutation proof is found insuffi-
cient, but whose entry is not cauceled. VIII–84
Allowed where through mistake the settlement and improvements of
the entryman were not on the land covered by the entry and it was
accordingly canceled. VIII–188
Will not be allowed where a timber-land entry is canceled because
the land is not subject thereto, and the entry was made without
personal knowledge of the land. VII–10
May be allowed on cancellation of timber entry because the land is
not subject to such appropriation, where fraud does not appear.
VII-40
May be allowed for a timber-land entry made on proof prematurely
submitted. IX—611
Not allowed because the character of the land does not suit the entry.
man and he therefore desires to Secure a return of the purchase
price. I-40
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 367
Repayment—Continued.
Where a person was misled as to the character of the land, by a pri-
vate survey, and relinquished his claim (desert-land), as responsi-
bility for the mistake does not rest on the government, repayment
is denied. II–694
On cancellation of timber-culture entry because the land was not
subject thereto, not allowed; the entryman without personal knowl-
edge having made oath that the land was devoid of timber.
VI—398
May be allowed on cancellation of timber-culture entry, if the entry
was made in good faith, though the land was not “devoid of
timber.” WI–656
Allowed where illegal entry was made through ignorance, without
fraud or bad faith on the part of the entryman. III–520
The act of June 16, 1880, does not contemplate repayment where the
entry (indemnity scrip location) was founded in fraud (delivery of
scrip to one whose claim was without right), even though the
assignee was ignorant of the fraud. II–429
May be allowed of money paid for land in excess of the area actually
embraced within the entry. VII–32
Must be denied, where the entry is made with full notice of the rights
of a prior settler, and is voluntarily relinquished on account of the
conflict. IV-262
There is no authority for repayment of moneys deposited, under sec.
tion 2356, R. S., in excess of the cost of the land purchased at pri-
vate entry. II–659
Not authorized where the purchase price of land has been twice paid.
V-114
Refused where the failure to secure title is clearly the fault of the
applicant. IV—262
Cam not be allowed of money deposited to cover the cost of office
work on the survey of a mineral claim, though the deposit is not ex-
pended. - VII–102
May be allowed on cancellation of an entry made in good faith for a
tract of swamp land. X—39
No claim for, where one purchases land from the State, claimed by it
as swamp, and it subsequently appears that such land did not pass
under the swamp grant. X-393
May be allowed in case of graduation entry erroneously allowed for
land that passed under the swamp grant. VIII–621
Not entitled to, on failure to comply with terms of purchase of Indian
trust land under the act of July 5, 1876. I-529
And reimbursement provided by act of March 3, 1887, in case of set-
tlers and purchasers within the limits of the grant to the Northern
Kansas Railroad. V—627
Will not be allowed of money deposited with the receiver as agent
of the applicant. VIII–77
368 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
Repayment—Continued.
Where entry has been made by scrip assigned by a fraudulent holder
(Louisiana), repayment will not be made to the assignee entryman,
notwithstanding his ignorance of the fraud, and especially where
he was not the legal representative of the confirmee. II–429
No authority for, to one holding under a patent rightfully issued, but
claiming such right by virtue of another title derived through a
different source. VII–99
Not allowed to one who as assignee under a graduation entry made
cash payments in lieu of settlement and cultivation. VIII–134
Of the bonus voluntarily paid for an entry (timber-culture), where
two or more applications were simultaneously made and the pre-
ferred right of entry was put up at auction, is denied.
II–687, 688, 689; III–555
The right to, recognized where the privilege of contesting an entry
was successfully bid for, but the contest dismissed on account of a
prior suit of record. III–67
Denied to assignee of a canceled warrant location made under ficti-
tious name. III–458
A decision denying the right of, and long acquiesced in, will not be
re-opened. VIII–134
Application for, pending appeal from order of cancellation is a waiver
of the appeal. W–409; IX—643
Reservation.
I. G ENERALLY.
II. INDIAN.
III. MILITARY.
I. GENERALLY. (See Railroad Grant, subtitle No. v.)
Authority of President to create, and provisions of law relative thereto.
I–702
The President is vested with general authority in the matter of re-
serving land for public uses. VI–18, 317; x–513
The President in setting apart land is regarded as acting under au-
thority of Congress. I–30
The power of the President to create extends to any unappropriated
public land. I–30, 553
Land set apart by Executive authority for public use is not subject
to disposition under the public land laws during the existence of
the reservation. VI—317
The Commissioner of the Land Office is vested with discretionary
authority, and the withdrawal made by him of land supposed to
be included within a claim is legal if not disapproved by the Sec-
retary. III–55
Made by competent authority, reserves the land from appropriation
under the public land laws. WI–585.
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 369
I. GENERALLY-Continued. -
For a public purpose should be distinguished from a, for the benefi
of a railroad grant. W–49
Of land for special purposes, made to the end that the government
may enforce them. I–368
The legal appropriation of land for any purpose severs it from the
public lands, and it is not thereafter subject to other disposition.
| I–339, 393
Land withdrawn for the benefit of designated claimants is not sub-
ject to appropriation by others X-144
No part of lands withdrawn for the location of a reservation subject
to settlement until after Survey. III–219
May not under order of President include land covered by an existing
homestead entry. I–30, 451
Land embraced within a prečmption filing may be set apart at any
time prior to final proof and payment. I–30, 450, 451
Claims initiated prior to order of, should be protected if compatible
with public interests. I-451
Compensation recommended where settler's claim was appropriated
to government use. I–307
Are created by law or order, and not by mere markings on the official
plats, whether of saline, swamp, mineral, or timbered lands; qual-
ified claimants have the right to claim them and to show that they
are not of the character indicated. II–847
The failure of the plats to show the saline character of a tract does not
subject it to entry; it is reserved by the law, and not by markings
on the plats. II–851
Inadvertent notation of warrant location on local office records does
not constitute a reservation of the land. V—202
No mere de facto reservation or appropriation can defeat the rights
of qualified claimants to the public land. II–849
Created by executive order, exists until formal order of revocation,
though the purpose of the Withdrawal may have ceased to exist.
V-432
Lands constituting government reservations are not subject to pre-
emption or homestead claims, and upon relinquishment are regarded
as a distict class of public lands; it has been customary, when Con-
gress intended to open them to entry, to express such intention
plainly ; otherwise they are subject only to appraisal and sale.
II–ſ:04
The theory of the appraisal before sale of these lands is that time en-
hances their value by the increase of population around them.
- II–610
When brought into market the Commissioner of the General Land
Office shall fix the price of. W–270
10464—24
370 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
I. GENERALLY-Continued.
Under consideration in section 2364, Revised Statutes, does not in-
clude even-numbered sections increased in price on account of a
railroad grant. V–27
Of alternate sections from a grant to a State for railroad or canal
purposes, effect of. X—396
Unlawful settlement on abandoned reservations (military) is trespass.
II-S22
Claim of occupant in Hot Springs must be presented under the act of
March 3, 1877. III–464
II. INDIAN. (See Indian Lands ; Railroad Grant, subtitle No. x.)
As effected by order of the President withdrawing land for the use
of Indians. W–432
Permanent Indian, defined, as well as “common Indian title” and the
distinction noted. I-101; V–138, 343
An entry of record excepts the land covered thereby from the effect
of an executive order reserving land for the benefit of Indian claim-
ants under the homestead law, but such order becomes effective on
the cancellation of the entry. V–49; X-144
Klamath River, California, has been maintained since passage of act
of April 8, 1864; when selections for the Indians within it are
made, the question of restoring the remaining lands to the public
domain will be considered. - II–460
Fort Berthold, Montana and Dakota, made by executive order May
12, 1870; the greater part fell into a prior withdrawal for the North-
ern Pacific Railroad by executive order of July 13, 1883, restoring
it to the public domain ; no rights by settlement were acquired in
it. II–520
Crow Indian, Montana; the Indian title was confirmed, not acquired,
by the treaty of 1868; the Northern Pacific Railroad may not take
materials for construction from it, because it was not public land
at date of grant. II–520
Bitter Root Valley, Montana, above the Lo-Lo Fork, did not pass to
the Northern Pacific Railroad; under act of June 15, 1872, but fif.
teen townships were to be sold at minimum price; the price of the
remainder should be fixed at double minimum. II–675
Ute (Uncompahgre and White River), Colorado, opened by act of
July 28, 1882, with saving of rights of settlers in the ten-mile strip
west of the one hundred and seventh meridian, which had been
mistakenly surveyed and settled on ; the act legalized the illegal
occupation, nothing more ; it did not save any rights, or affect the
price of the lands. II–730
Fond du Lac, Minn.; Indians may not cut timber on it except to
improve the land, and only after approval of their selections.
II–821
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 3.71
II. INDIAN–Continued.
Right of way only granted as an easement to railroad company
through Red Cliff Indian Reservation. III–591
Report of special agents on adjustment of settlers' claims on Sioux
Indian Reservation. III–288
Lands in former Sioux Indian Reservation released from suspension.
III–598
Lands within the Crow Indian, released under treaty made before,
but not ratified until after definite location of the railroad were
excepted from the grant. III–158
Sixteenth article of treaty of April 29, 1868, did not reserve the land
described therein as “north of the North Platte River and east of
the Big Horn Mountains.” W–343
Santee Sioux, not opened to entry prior to the receipt of Indian allot-
mentS. V–311
Allotments under the act of March 3, 1863, were protected in the
executive order opening the Santee Sioux Reservation to settle-
ment and entry. . W–447
For the use of the Navajo Indians by order of April 24, 1886, excludes
prečmption. VII—334
Compensation provided for settlers on Navajo. VII–334
No statutory authority for certain right of way privileges claimed
through the Puyallup Indian Reservation. VII—450
The construction of the treaty of December 26, 1854, adopted by the
Executive, with the assent of the Indians, in the matter of the
Puyallup additional reservation, having been recognized by Con-
gressional action, should be accepted as conclusive. X—513
The Puyallup additional, created by executive order of January 20,
1857, was within the scope of the authority conferred upon the Pres-
ident by the sixth article of the treaty. X—513
The authority of the Executive in making the treaty of December 26,
1854, carried with it the right to reserve the lands therein set apart
for the use of the Indians, and empowered the President to make
such additional reservations as might be necessary. X—513
For the use of Indians, not limited by the act of September 27, 1850,
and amendatory acts, relative to public lands in Oregon. Y-513
III. MILITARY.
Of land for military purposes excludes it from the operation of public
land laws. WI–19
The establishment and occupancy of a cantonment by military au-
thority excludes from entry, prior to the formal order of reserva-
tion, the land thus appropriated. W–376
Of land for military purposes, directed by the War Department, pre-
cludes the allowance of an entry therefor while occupied under
such authority. IX—600
372 I)IGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
III. MILITARY-Continued.
Made by order of commanding general, subsequently approved by
the President, takes effect, by relation, as of the date of said order.
WI–657
For military purposes, made in violation of law, does not take the
land out of the class of public lands so as to require their disposal
by special enactment. WI–16
Created for penitentiary purposes, would not, in the absence of ex-
press words indicoting such intent, be held to have been abrogated
by an act relieving the land from a prior military reservation.
VII–133
An order setting apart lands for penitentiary purposes would not
operate to relieve said lands from a prior military reservation; but
such second appropriation made under the concurrent authority of
two departments, and for a purpose not inconsistent with the first,
would be conclusive as against any other appropriation of the land.
VII–133
The statutory limitation of February 14, 1853, as to the amount of
land that may be withdrawn for a military, only applicable within
the territorial limits of Oregon. WI–46; IX-67, 104
Action of the War Department in fixing boundary line of military,
conclusive, being the final act of the Executive. 1–168
Right to acquire lands within former limits of Fort Lyon, under the
homestead, prečmption, or timber-culture law, confined to those
who had made entries or filings prior to the act of July 5, 1884.
IX–67
Land within the former limits of Fort Lyon, not entered or settled
upon prior to the act of July 5, 1884, must be disposed of under
said act. IX-67
Durchasers of lands within the former reservation of Fort Larned are
required to show compliance with the preemption law in matters
of settlement of residence. WI–600
Disposition of lands formerly included within Fort Sanders military.
VII–403, 430, 548
The act of June 9, 1874, reducing the area of Fort Sanders military,
legalized settlements made while the land was not subject thereto,
but did not confer a new grant upon the Union Pacific, or confirm
to it lands theretofore excluded from its grant. WII–430
Fort Brooke, Florida, duly relinquished to the Secretary of the In-
terior on January 4, 1853, and plat of same Sent by the Commis-
sioner to the local office; said plat, without accompanying instruc-
tions, did not open the land to settlers; under the law the tract,
reduced to 148.11 acres, must be ordered into market for appraisal
and sale, and was not subject to settlement claims. II–603, 606
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 373
III. MILITARY—Continued.
On the abandonment of the White River military reservation the
land covered thereby became subject to disposal under the act of
June 15, 1880, and not under the law providing for the sale of
abandoned military reservations. VII–191
Fort Abercrombie, Minnesota, opened by act of July 15, 1882; held
that under the act one who had cultivated and improved part of a
forty since 1871, though never actually residing on it, was entitled
as against one who had begun settlement and residence in 1881,
with notice of the prior occupation. II–206
Fort Seward military, abolished by act of June 10, 1880, and lands
opened to sale and entry. WI–657
Fort Cameron, Utah, though abandoned, is not yet restored to the
public domain ; timber cutting on it is within the jurisdiction of
the Land Department ; settlement on it is trespass. II–822
Fort St. John, Louisiana, was not reserved by Congress or the
Executive, but, being so held by former governments, did not
result to the public domain on acquisition of the country by the
United States, but to special governmental use; it was sold Au-
gust 31, 1871. II–397
Florida; historical sketch of military reservations in. II–607
Act of 1856 and section 6, act of June 12, 1858, relative to military
reservations in Florida repealed by the act of 1884. W–632
Boundaries of Fort Meade, modified. III–574
Recommended for Fort Custer and national Cemetery. V-226
Un relinquishment of military, the land must be disposed of by Con-
gress. WI–19
The act of July 5, 1884, is general, applying to abandoned military
reservations not encumbered by special trusts. III–297
The disposition of all abandoned military, not theretofore disposed
of, governed by the act of July 5, 1884. V–632
Settlement prior to January 1, 1884, protected within abandoned
military, by the act of July 5, 1884. V–632; v1–16
Act of July 5, 1884, does not legalize settlements made with the full
knowledge that the lands were reserved. X–489
Entry within abandoned military, not authorized by the act of July
5, 1884, except on settlement prior to January 1, 1884, and contin-
uous occupation thereafter. V–555, 632
Settlement and entry not authorized on lands within abandoned mil-
itary, after being placed under the control of the Secretary of the
Interior. IX—104
Actual occupation prior to the establishment of, or settlement prior
to January 1, 1884, with continuous occupation thereafter, must be
shown to secure the right of homestead entry under the act of July
5, 1884. VII–369
374 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
III. MILITARY-Continued.
Pending the sale of government buildings on an abandoned military,
the Department may withhold from disposition the land on which
such buildings are situated. X-602
Disposition of abandoned military, not affected by the act of March
2, 1889. (See section 8 of said act.) VIII–318
Method of procedure in appraisement of military, under act of July
5, 1884. V-228
Sale of military, under the act of June 19, 1874. V-103
For military purposes, acquired by purchase should be disposed of
under the act of 1884, if abandoned. III–577
Residence. (See Abandonment ; Settlement.)
I. GENERALLY.
II. HOMESTEAD.
III. COMMUTED HOMESTEAD.
IV. PREišMPTION,
V. OSAGE LAND.
I. GENERALLY.
To establish, there must be, concurrent with the act of settlement, an
intent to make the land a home to the exclusion of one elsewhere.
IV—412; V–179; Ix—340
Established from the moment that the settler goes upon the land
with the intention of making his home there.
II–161; IV-330; V–239; W1–121, 258
Begins with the first act of settlement where such act is followed by
an actual inhabitancy of the land in good faith. VII–410
Acquired where presence upon the land is with the intent to make
it a permanent home to the exclusion of one elsewhere. VIII–248
The place of one's domicil determines the place of his residence.
Iv–200, 330
The law requires residence in person ; one can not establish a resi-
dence by proxy (by a woman not a member of entryman's family).
II–146
Of a married man held to be where his family resides, in the absence
of proof to the contrary.
I–89; IV—394; VII–35; VIII–615, 629; Ix–546
The home of a married woman is presumptively with her husband.
X–30
The fact that the wife continues to reside at the former home raises
a presumption against the bona fides of the residence alleged ; but
such presumption may be overcome. WI–577
The land is the entryman's home, if he established residence on it,
so long as his family occupy it. II–82
The entryman having established a personal, it may be maintained by
the residence of the family. III–21
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 375
I. GENERALLY-Continued.
Only the wife shall be heard to prove change of residence by showing
that her husband deserted her. II–81
In determining, by the presence of the “family,” children, whether
legitimate or otherwise, should be held as members thereof, if they
remain with the parent and under his care. IX—52
As the tenant of another confers no rights under the public land
laws. III–257
Occupation through a tenant is not the maintenance of residence re-
Quisite under the public land law. IV—412
Maintained as the employé of another, who asserts a possessory right
to the land, confers no rights under the settlement laws. X-276
Neither acquired nor maintained, without inhabitancy of the land,
either actual or constructive, and that to the exclusion of a home
elsewhere. IV-301, 412;
v1–422; VII-267; Ix–175; x–240, 326,339, 388
Must be acquired, in the first instance, by actual presence on the
land, but continuous presence thereafter is not essential to the con-
tinuity of such residence. I–63; VII–144
And presence on land not convertible terms. VII–144; Ix–266
In acquiring, the former residence of the settler must be abandoned.
V-179
Keeping a house in town to which the family return from time to
time not in itself proof of bad faith. III–21
Once established, can only be changed when the act and intent of
the settler unite to effect such change. V–6, 179
Where sufficiently shown, warrants the conclusion that the land was
taken for a permanent home in the absence of evidence to the con-
trary. VII–127
Not acquired by one who goes upon public land with the fixed inten-
tion of leaving the same, after colorable compliance with the law,
and in the meantiume substantially maintains a home elsewhere.
VI–25; VIII–615
Not acquired or maintained by going upon or visiting land for the
purpose of complying with the mere letter of the law.
VIII–248, 285, 331
Must be both continuous and personal to justify a claim of good faith.
IV-200
And occupation is notice of the settler's claim which others are bound
to recognize. IV—308
The quality of, not considered before final proof is made. IV—389
Laws requiring improvement and residence not satisfied by Occupa-
tion for business purposes. I–456
Claim of, not consistent with apparent evasion of the law. W–273
Intention to leave the land after making final proof may be compati-
ble with good faith. VIII–508
376 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
I. GENERALLY-Continued.
Absence immediately following final proof submitted in the presence
of an adverse claim indicative of bad faith. W–449
Failure to establish, can not be cured by returning to the land after
the submission and rejection of fraudulent final proof. IX—527
On a tract covered by the entry of another is unavailing if it is aban-
doned prior to the cancellation of said entry and not resumed until
after the intervention of an adverse right. VIII–584
Credit for, from the time it actually began may be allowed to one
Who procures the cancellation of a prior entry covering the land.
- Iv–287; VIII–227
Failure in residence not excused by bringing suit in the courts for
possession. III–370
Upon land entered through fraud does not validate the claim. III–299
Cultivation and improvement not the equivalent of. V-351; VI-27
The cultivation of crops from year to year and the presence of valu-
able improvements are an indication of good faith in the claim of
residence. VII—231; IX-146
Conclusive presumption of abandonment not raised by the fact that
the claimant, while absent on account of sickness, voted in the
precinct where he had been taken for treatment. VIII–353
Holding office and voting in another county will defeat the claim of
residence. IV—62
Want of, inferred from meager improvements and voting in a differ-
ent precinct. VII–143
Voting in a different precinct from that in which the land is situated
does not raise a conclusive presumption against the claim of resi-
dence thereon. Ix–139
Mistaken location of house outside of the claim will not defeat the
good faith of the residence. IX–175
In good faith in a house supposed to be on the land claimed is con-
structive residence upon the land. I-439; II–46; x–83
Dwelling house may be partly on land not claimed and not defeat
the claim of residence. III–321; IV-62
May be maintained in the upper story of a building erected for other
purposes. III–562
Can not be maintained for separate tracts and under different laws
at the same time. Iv–26, 462; VI-792; VII–225; Ix–63
Two separate residences may not be maintained upon public land
under two separate laws either of which exacts a continuous res-
idence. II–622; III–506
Being an essential in both, precludes the assertion of a homestead
and prečmption claim at the same time. v–403; VI-831
Separate, can not be maintained at the same time by husband and
wife, living together in such relation, in a house built across the
line between two settlement claims, so that each can Secure a claim
thereby. IX—426; x–266
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 377
. GENERALLY-Continued.
Leave of absence granted under section 3, act of March 3, 1889; cir-
cular of September 19, 1889. IX—433
Leave of absence permissible under the act of March 2, 1889 (cir-
cular of March 8, 1889). VIII–314
Nature of claim or relations of the parties to the land not affected by
the act of June 4, 1880. I-434
Absence in winter months excused when the altitude of the land is
such as to prevent residence throughout the entire year.
WI–811; VII–57; Ix—450
Climatic reason for failure to reside not accepted in the absence of
good faith. III–533; IV—348,393
Not acquired nor maintained by occasional visits to the land.
II–74, 144, 152, 159;
III–533; IV-141, 235, 301, 308, 349, 413; x–472
Having been established, and good faith appearing, the excuses for
absence will be accepted. III–110; IV–167
The facts which will excuse absence must be such as rendered it com-
pulsory. II–152
When once acquired, temporary absences that indicate no intention
of abandonment may be excused. III–545, 564;
Iv–56, 62, 80, 200, 260; VII–249, 345; VIII–60; Ix–266
After establishment of, temporary absences, not inconsistent with an
honest intention to comply with the law, are accounted a construc-
tive. VI–566, 606
Where the absences aggregated more than six months, but were not
over four months at any one time, and where good faith in cultiva-
tion and improvement is shown, the entry may stand. II–155
Where an excuse for absence is offered, such as poverty and sickness,
and the evidence shows a mere pretense of Settlement, without cul-
tivation, improvement, or establishment of a residence, it will not
avail the claimant. II–142
Temporary absences occasioned by ill health do not interrupt the
continuity of. W–215; VIII-353: Ix–146
Absence is excused, where the entryman shows the illness of his wife
and the necessity of taking her away for treatment, together with
improvement and cultivation. II–156
When once established, absences rendered necessary by the sickness
of a parent may be excused. VII–170
Continuity of, not broken by a temporary absence occasioned by the
fatal illness of a friend. X—526
Continuity of, not broken by temporary absences made necessary by
the poverty of the claimant. VI—154, 170; IX—150; x–492
Poverty justifies temporary absences for the purpose of obtaining
means where with to improve a homestead. II–149
378 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
I. GENERALITY –Continued.
Absences will not be excused on the plea of poverty where good faith
is not apparent. III–543; VII–467
Total want of, not excused by poverty. Iv–186,303
The poverty of claimant, condition of his family, and severity of
climate may be properly considered in determining whether due
compliance with the law has been shown. WI–567
Absences caused by ill health, insanity, and poverty held excusable,
and the period covered thereby treated as a part of the required
period of. VI—311
After once secured, the “inhabitancy" is not impeached by absences
necessary to Secure means for the improvement of the land and the
payment of the purchase price. VI—576; VIII–645
Temporary absences for the purpose of earning a living, not incon-
sistent with an honest intention to comply with the law, Inay be
held constructive. II–157; wi-245, 566; VIII–517, 639; Ix–57
Temporary absences, at a season of the year when but little work
could be done on the land, are not inconsistent with good faith in
the matter of inhabitancy. WI-338
Absences during the winter season for the purpose of earning money
to improve the claim may be excused. VII–360
Absence of the entryman or his family from the land may be satis-
factorily explained where it is obvious that the entry was made in
good faith. VI—254
Abandonment should not be presumed from temporary absences
where the settler's family remains on the land during such periods
of absence. IX-52
The charge against a young woman of failure to establish a residence
is not sustained by evidence showing the building of a house (with
other improvements), residence in it for two days, and going into
service for the purpose of earning money to improve the land.
II–162
After the establishment of, absence caused by official duties will not
work a forfeiture of the settler's rights. II–110, 147 ;
III–6; VI-668; VII–88; VIII–85; IX—525
Claimant is excused from residing on the land where residence was
established, but can not be maintained because of official duties
elsewhere. II–74
If not first acquired in good faith, later absences can not be excused
on the ground of official duties. IX—523
If the duties of an office are not inconsistent with presence on the
land, they can not be accepted as an excuse for absence therefrom.
IX—546
Of a postmaster presumed to be within the delivery of his office.
W–155
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 379
I. GENERALLY-Continued.
Of a public official presumptively consistent with the law creating
the office. W–282
Total want of, not excused by election to a public office. I–95
An official, required to reside personally in a town, may properly
leave it for a time and establish a good residence on public land,
Where he intends to remove his family and remain with them from
time to time. II–161
If once established, the continuity thereof is not broken by absence
caused by judicial restraint. V–6; VII–532; x–551
Continuity of, not broken by forcible ouster from the land and sub-
sequent compulsory absence therefrom. IV-335; VIII–593
Failure to establish and maintain, when occasioned by duress, can
not be construed as abandonment. II–152; IV—378; VI-616
Failure to establish, will not be excused on the plea of duress when
a part of the land was, at date of entry and thereafter, free from
adverse claims. . IX–22
Where partly prevented, by the force and violence of occupying claim-
ant, held sufficient. III–368
Not incumbent upon a settler who has been wrongfully ejected from
his land to make a new settlement on that part of the claim not in
dispute, pending judicial proceedings to recover possession.
- VIII–593
Threats of violence and an unfavorable decision of the local office
accepted as excusing Want of. I–43
Threats and other acts of intimidation by a violent man may excuse
failure to maintain a residence, which has been already established
in good faith. II–602
Where one can show that he was guided by an unrevoked though
erroneous decision of the General Land Office in not establishing a
residence, he is protected. II—154
Building and occupation (peaceable) of a house by a young man
within 25 feet of a house built by a young woman, during her
absence, both houses being built near a spring, are not in them.
selves acts of intimidation. II–630
Want of, excused in case of continued suspension of plat. IV—333
* - * -- ~~ *** * * *
II. HOMESTEAD.
Residence under the homestead law begins from date of entry.
I–94; III–506; IV—462; V–406
Not required prior to the allowance of application to enter. X–510
Need not be established, where entry was made pending the right of
appeal by a former entryman, until disposition of said appeal,
which was taken before residence was required. WI–688
After a period of five years the entryman is not required to show fur.
ther inhabitancy. WI–143
380 - DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
II. HOMESTEAD–Continued.
Must be established under homestead entry within six months from
date thereof, and failure in this requirement is considered a defect
requiring explanation. VIII–566
The law requires a homestead settler to commence residence on the
land within six months from date of the entry ; but the act of March
3, 1881, authorizes the Commissioner to extend this period for six
months, where climatic reasons have prevented the residence.
II–145; III–462
Failure to establish, within six months from date of entry fatal in the
presence of an intervening right. IX—523
Failure to commence held to be excused by climatic and other reasons
beyond the settler's control. III–48
If alleged before required by the statute it must be shown in good
faith. W–440
Essential requirement of homestead law, dependent upon actual in-
habitancy of the land to the exclusion of a home elsewhere.
I–78; II–143; VIII–576, 584; x–79, 211, 294
Cultivation and improvements without, do not constitute compliance
with the homestead law. VI–788; x–346
Cultivation of the homestead, with temporary sojourns on it, but with
actual residence on an adjoining tract, is not a compliance with the
law; residence on the homestead is a condition precedent to title.
& II–143
Upon a tract held by a possessory right of the claimant, adjacent to,
and included within, the inclosure of the homestead claim, will not
support an entry under the homestead law. X–130
It is no evidence of bad faith that the house of the homesteader is
built across the line between two claims. X–88
Can not be maintained separately by husband and wife at same time,
living as one family in the same house, so that each may perfect an
entry under the homestead law. IX—426
Alleged under the homestead law, not consistent with the mainte-
nance at the same time, in another State, of the residence required
as prerequisite to citizenship under the naturalization laws. VII–58
A homesteader who takes title to the tract on which his house is sit-
uated by scrip location and removes to another part of the original
claim can not be credited for residence on the first tract. VIII–547
A homesteader may receive credit for, during a period while the land
was covered by a prior entry under which no right was asserted,
and which was subsequently canceled. X–276
Credit for, while the land was held under his previous timber-culture
entry, may be allowed a homesteader in the absence of an inter-
vening claim. VI—512; VIII–46, 192
No credit for, while the land is covered by the entry of another.
J–37, 46, 52
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 381
II. HOMESTEAD–Continued.
Credit for, not allowed before the entryman is a qualified settler under
the public land laws. I–36
Good faith is shown by making a home on the land and improve-
ments thereon. I–63
Want of, not excused on the plea that the land required irrigation.
V–297
No one but the wife, during the life of the entry, may allege “deser-
tion ” in proof of abandonment. VIII–626
Failure to maintain, not excused by the institution of judicial pro-
ceedings against an adverse occupant to recover possession. IX—22.
A homesteader who makes entry with knowledge of an existing
adverse settlement claim, asserted for a portion of the land, must
establish residence on some part of the entered tract, in order to
show due compliance with law. IX–22
The adverse occupancy of another, as to a part of the land covered
by a homestead entry, will not excuse the entryman from the main-
tenance of residence during the pendency of contest proceedings
over the land in conflict. IX—22
Establishment of, within six months from entry not a statutory
requirement, but a rule based on the provision in section 2297,
Revised Statutes, authorizing cancellation on proof of change of
residence or abandonment for more than six months. WI–567
An absence to procure a support for the family, though covering sev-
eral years, is not abandonment if the family lives on the land in the
meantime. WIII–626
Where entryman was absent, under act of June 4, 1880 (as to loss or
failure of crops), he was constructively residing on the land.
- I–24, 434; II–29
Actual service of soldier in the U. S. Army equivalent to residence,
under the provisions of section 2308 Revised Statutes. I–362
Service in the regular Army since the close of the rebellion not equiv-
alent to. I–98.
Actual length of military service should be deducted from required
period of. V–630
Length of service, not term of enlistment, determines the amount of
time to be deducted from period of, if the soldier was discharged
on account of disability existing before enlistment. W–674
In computing military service in lieu of, credit should not be allowed
twice for a period covered by two enlistments. VIII–227
Military service not construed as, during the time of Such service,
when no residence has been established. WI–788
Under a soldier's entry the claimant is entitled to credit for the full
period of enlistment, where his resignation as an officer is accepted
on a surgeon's certificate of disability. X-622
382 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
II. HOMESTEAD–Continued.
And cultivation must be shown for not less than one year in case of
entryman who has credit for four years' military service. III–582
Not required of the heirs, widow, or devisee of a deceased homesteader
but cultivation of the land must be shown for the statutory period.
I–636; II–74; IV—433; VII–309; Ix—31
Not required under an entry made by a guardian for the benefit of
the minor orphan child of a deceased soldier. X—528
Widow can not, under entry in her own right, claim for, during the
lifetime of her husband. I–36
On original farm will not be held as, on adjoining farm prior to entry
thereof. I–68
On the original farm, prior to adjoining farm entry, can not be cred-
ited as part of the statutory period of inhabitancy under an ad-
joining entry. X–488
The matter of residence on adjoining farm is not modified by the pro-
visions of the act of May 14, 1880. W–172
Credited under the act of May 14, 1880, in case of adjoining farm
entry from date of settlement. (Overruled, 13 L. D., 713.) VII–33
On the original farm essential to the right of making adjoining farm
entry. X—579
Adjoining farm entry can not be made without residence upon origi-
nal tract or under new entry. III–394
Period of, abridged by section 2305, Revised Statutes, but the qual-
ity of, is unchanged thereby. W-205
Of one year required in case of additional homestead entry made
under the act of March 3, 1879. I–100
Must be established and maintained under additional entry where
the original was purchased under the act of June 15, 1880, I-29
III. COMMUTED EIOMESTEAD.
A proper element to be considered in commutation proof.
IV—347, 384,478
Proof of, required as under the prečmption law. V–676
In case of commutation should be computed from date of settlement.
W–94
Want of bona fide, in commutation will defeat right acquired by orig-
inal entry. W–392
Want of not excused on the plea of poverty in case of commutation,
W–448
The fact of commutation does not in all cases defeat the plea of pov-
erty when set up as an excuse for absences from the land. VI-170
The period of six months’ residence required is to secure an assur-
ance of good faith, but exceptions are justified, where good faith
is apparent and substantial compliance with the regulations ap-
pearS. IV-287; v1–573
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 383
III. COMMUTED HOMESTEAD–Continued.
A term of six months' residence after entry not essential in commu-
tation. IV—418
A period of six months' inhabitancy immediately preceding entry re-
quired as a test of good faith; but temporary absences caused by
poverty or ill health will not impair such inhabitancy.
VIII–634, 639
Six months' presence on the land for the purpose of carrying out the
letter of the departmental requirement, with the intent to discon-
tinue inhabitancy at the end of that period, not accepted. VIII-285
Not required after submission of satisfactory commutation proof, and
tender of payment. X—555
IV. PREEMPTION.
Not required pending action on application to file declaratory state-
ment. X-616
The rule requiring six months' preceding entry is for the purpose of
testing the claimant's good faith and is not a statutory require-
ment. I-493; V-95; WI-566,636
Period of six months required to show good faith; but where other-
wise shown a literal compliance is not necessary. I-493; VII–3
Actual and continuous for six months immediately preceding final
proof is not required if good faith is otherwise shown. IX—139
There is no rule of law or of the Department which requires the pre-
emptor's actual personal presence on the land for six months im-
mediately preceding the offer of proof. VII–62; x-337
The prečmptor is required to show six months' continuous residence
prior to final proof, but such residence is compatible with tempo-
rary absences satisfactorily explained. VII–62
A failure to follow up settlement by establishing a residence, divests
the person of all rights acquired by the settlement. II–574, 637
Should be upon the land at the date of making proof. IX—621
A prečmptor must reside on the tract to date of his entry; where he
made homestead entry on February 11 and resided on the home-
stead until April 1, following date of final proof, his application for
entry should be rejected. II–622
Must first be established in good faith before excuses for absence
will be accepted. III–107
Absence in military service permissible if actual residence has been
established. VIII–570; Ix–489
A claimant not necessarily required to abandon his business to ac-
quire title under the prečmption law. III–223; v1–121
Using the land as a herding place for cattle while the settler resides
elsewhere is not contemplated by the prečmption law. III–87
Removal of the dwelling house to an adjoining tract on account of
annual inundations, prior to final proof but after a period of four
years' residence, not indicative of bad faith. VII–259
384 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
IV. PREEMPTION.—Continued.
Pretending to Occupy a shanty, near his employer's claim, without
stove or cooking utensils, and for seven months of cold weather oc-
cupying the house on his employer's claim, is not legal residence.
II–602
One sleeping on his claim in a pen, or in the open air, and intending
to erect a habitable dwelling so soon as his means or occupation
permits, maintains a satisfactory residence. II—624
Where A left the land, and B made settlement, and, without cultiva.
ting or establishing residence, also left it for three months, during
which period. A returned, and thereafter complied with the law,
A’s right is superior. II–625
On a tract held under patent can not be extended to adjoining land
by Occupation and cultivation of the same. VI—356
Allowed as a prečmptor while the land was covered by the settler's
timber culture entry. I–5S
Prečimptor allowed further time, within the statutory period, to make
residence and showing thereof. III–375
Credit for, on abandoned prečmption claim not allowed on attempted
transmutation. I-485
Credit allowed for previous, on transmutation of filing to homestead
entry. I-355
Of prečmptor available, under act of May 14, 1880, on transmuta-
tion. V–118
By the heir of prečmptor not required in order to perfect the claim
of the decedent. III–345
V. OSAGE LAND. (See Indian Lands, subtitle No. IX.)
For a period of six months preceding entry not required in entries of
Osage lands, but bona fide settlement must be show u.
V–309, 581; VI—783
Res Judicata.
The doctrine of, necessarily applicable to proceedings before the
Land Department to avoid confusion and uncertainty as to finality
of action. IV–482; X—453
Identity in the thing sued for, in the cause of action in the person
and parties, and in the quality of the persons must exist to make
the case. - III–199; IV—209, 428; V1–385
Where the same matter has been actually tried, or so in issue that it
might have been tried, it is not again admissible. II-595; WII–116
Final decisions of the General Land Office not conclusive as to new
parties claiming before the Department. V-12
Final rejection of claim for land under a specified statute does not
preclude a subsequent application for the same land under a dif.
ferent law. W–415; WI–309
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 385
Res Judicata—Continued.
A final decision against a right asserted under the prečmption law is
no bar to a claim by the same person for the same land under a
different law. - W–566
Adjudication of an applicant's claim for a tract of land under one
law is no bar to a subsequent application of the same party under
a different law and upon a different state of facts. X-281
An adjudication that certain land was not excepted from a railroad
grant by a rancho claim, will not bar application by the same per-
son, for said land, on the allegation that it was excluded from the
grant by a preemption claim. III–122
The final location of one of several contiguous claims does not pre-
clude full examination in the location of the remainder, though it
Imay result in conflict with the previous adjudication. I–213
Determination of rights as between settlers and a railroad company
will not preclude subsequent consideration of the status of the
lands under said settlement claims in determining the right of the
company as against the government. IV-249; v-662
A final decision by the Secretary of the Interior is conclusive as to
departmental action therein, and will not be disturbed by his suc-
cessor where no new question is presented. I-232; V–34, 51, 483;
- VII–146; Ix–363
The head of a Department can not, with certain exceptions, reverse
the action of his predecessor. - III–196, 537, 559, 595;
IV–6, 252, 483; VIII–255; X-94
The Secretary has authority to review the decision of a former Sec-
retary, or revoke his own if obtained through fraud or mistake.
Iv–120; VI-37
Final decision of the head of a Department reviewed on new facts.
V–109
The Secretary, acting through an assistant, may reopen and reverse
his own decision rendered by another assistant without violating
the doctrine of. IX-5SS
Final decision of the Secretary conclusive upon subordinate officers
of the Land Department. v–613; WI-378; x–93, 200
Final adjudication in the Department precludes further action by
the General Land Office. W–613
Rule of, not applied where the issue is solely between the govern-
ment and applicant. Iv–249, 405; V-333
Former action of Department in administrative matter not conclu-
sive. IV—313
Decision that a ministerial duty has been correctly performed not
necessarily conclusive. VII–286
Refusal to recommend suit to set aside patent not conclusive as to
succeeding head of the Department on the presentation of new
ground for such action. IV—577
10464—25 -
/*
386 - DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
Res Judicata—Continued.
Rejection of an application for survey of an island not treated as.
IX—625
Decision of the Commissioner as to priority between two parties will
not preclude his successor from passıng on the final proof subse-
Quently offered by the successful party. IV—558
The Commissioner of the General Land Office can not review a final
decision of his predecessor, though any error apparent of record
may be corrected by the Department. V-51 ; VI-4
With certain exceptions, the Commissioner of the General Land
Office has no authority to review or modify a final decision of his
predecessor. x–200, 603
Doctrine of, does not preclude action of General Land Office on new
evidence that may be submitted in pending case. m WI–174
Irregularity of proceeding warrants the Commissioner of the General
Land Office in reviewing the decision of his predecessor. I–363,366
Plea of, not good where the Commissioner's decision was rendered
in the absence of material facts from the record. WI–15
An opinion of the Commissioner based upon a partial and ea parte
statement of the facts not conclusive. W–610; IX—546
Approval of final proof by examiner in General Land Office is not a
decision of the Commissioner that can not be reviewed by his suc-
CeSSOI’. WI-379
Action of the local officers under direction of the General Land
Office will not preclude a different judgment on the final disposi-
tion of the case. v–174, 610
Allowance of an entry by direction of the General Land Office will not
preclude departmental action with respect to determining its valid-
ity. - V–49; VII–301
Decision of the Department rendered upon an incomplete record is
not. VI–179; IX—551
Doctrine of, applicable where the case falls within a particular class
covered by former decision. I–504
A case is not, where the ruling was in the nature of general instruc-
tions to cover all cases of its kind and was not made on appeal.
VI–487
A ruling on a question not involved in the case is not conclusive.
v–322; VIII–188
Doctrine only applicable to the land actually involved, though the
decision may in terms purport to settle the status of the whole sec-
tion. VII–54
Doctrine not applied where the question appeared to have received
but little consideration. I–174
A decision long acquiesced in Will not be disturbed. III–364;
VIII–134
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 387
Res Judicata—Continued.
Lapse of time, and the rights of parties acquired in good faith under
executive action, justify the application of the doctrine. X-652
Authority of Secretary to set aside the approval of his predecessor
on list of railroad selections questioned. I–378
Where mistake or fraud is not alleged, the case will not be reopened
for the purpose of making a different disposition of the land,
because a different rule in relation to such claims may subsequently
prevail. II–497
Acts done under a law in force are not affected by a subsequent
repeal of the law. IV—476
Where a claim to lands in railroad limits is rejected under the rules,
it is res judicata between the claimant and the company, though
... the ruling causing the rejection has since been changed.
II–499, 501
Adjudications of the Department not disturbed on alleged error in
construing the law. V–185, 243
Doctrine of, will apply, notwithstanding the allegation that the
decision was founded upon error of fact and law. III–21
Plea of, not good when the tribunal had no jurisdiction over the sub-
ject decided. IV—460
Doctrine of, not held applicable where due notice of decision and
right of appeal were not allowed. I–366; IV-279; W II–42
Plea of, will not be entertained where the decision has not been car-
ried into execution and the case falls within the terms of the act of
April 21, 1876. IV—208
Judgment having gone to patent it is too late to invoke the act of
April 21, 1876. - IV-251
Plea of, not good as against the proceedings directed by the act of
March 3, 1887. VIII–318
That the former decision can not be executed should be considered
in determining whether it is a bar to further action by the Depart-
ment. IV—120
Approval of entry through verbal direction of the Secretary, not,
where it was presumably under subsequent consideration. IV—286
Case is not, because the tract, ill voived had been applied for by
another person and was awarded to the railroad company. III–168
Where surveyor-general refused to issue certificates of location (Lou-
isiana donation), and appeal was taken and afterwards withdrawn,
the question is res judicata. II–394
A decision conclusive when it determines the validity of conflicting
claims. The extent of the conflict on subsequent showing can not
affect the former adjudication. WI–634
Cancellation of an entry and award of the land to another is a final
adjudication. I–365
388 - DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
Res Judicata—Continued.
A decision of the Secretary of the Interior, awarding the right to
make final proof as of a certain date, will not preclude his suc-
cessor from considering acts performed after that date, for the pur-
pose of determining whether such acts show abandonment of the
claim, or impeach the good faith of the prior settlement and res-
idence. WI–633
A question decided finally in a contest between A and B may not be
again brought up by protest by B against the reception of A's final
proofs. II–594
A defeated party may so far follow the decision of the Department as
to see that the judgment is properly executed. I–594
A contested B's bomestead entry, and C interpleaded, alleging settle-
ment and improvement prior to B; the contest and interplea were
dismissed, and the land was declared open to entry; then B made
additional entry, and C contested it, alleging as before; the ques.
tion of the priority of settlement and of right based on it is not res
judicata. - II–121
Though the matter may be, yet the decision, if not executed, may be
examined and construed by the Department to determine the true
character and extent of the award thereunder. WI–434
The question of the right of purchase under section 2, act of June
15, 1880, was decided, and, there having been no appeal, is elim-
inated from consideration. II–94
Though the questions involved in a private claim may be similar to
those settled in a prior case the confirmee has the right to a full
hearing. I-246
If the decision rendered by the Department was only interlocutory
in character, the case, on its merits, may be renewed before the
proper subordinate tribunal. WI–374
An extra-judicial opinion of the Commissioner as to the legality of
an entry, expressed upon an ea parte and partial statement, will
not preclude subsequent departmental action. IX-182
Decision of board of equitable adjudication is final and conclusive.
I–411
Action of the War Department on matters within its jurisdiction
must be accepted by this Department as conclusive. I–168
This Department should accept as final what was so regarded by the
proper Department having charge of the interests of the govern-
ment. I–173
The Department will not take jurisdiction where such action involves
the consideration of a question finally determined by a decision of
the supreme court of the United States. V–185; VII–204
Effect of finality given the decision of a Federal Court, though the
government was not a party. V–87, 91
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. #89
Review. (See Practice.)
Revised Statutes. (See Tables of, page 58.)
Were the legislative declaration of the law when adopted. IV—7
Adoption of, did not annul former constructions IV–7
Right of Way and Station Grounds. (See Timber Trespass ; Tim-
ber Cutting.)
Instructions of August 29, 1885, with respect to the use of timber
and other material. IV—150
Act of March 3, 1875, grants but the use of land for the purposes
specified. ſº IV-526
Plats showing the selection of station grounds should be submitted
through the General Land Office. IV—525
Location of station grounds to be approved by Secretary. IV—525
The act of 1875 only requires approval of map on surveyed lands.
I—397
Locations may be disapproved where the intent of the act is not se-
cured. IV—525
Opinion of the Attorney-General requested on the authority of the
Department to revoke an allowance of right-of-way privileges.
(See 12 L. D., 574.) VIII-374
Entries of public land crossed by right of way are subject to prior
location of. IV—523
The notation of the company’s right on the entry papers is not au-
thorized where the road is constructed over unsurveyed land, and an
entry is afterwards allowed for land through which the road extends.
VIII–115
A statement reserving the right of the company may be placed in a
patent issued under an entry allowed for lands over which a road
was previously constructed and at a time when the lands were
unsurveyed. VIII–115
A map of definite location not required to secure, if a road has been
actually constructed by a company which has observed the prelim-
inary requirements. VIII–115
Company is not required to file proof of organization under the laws
of every State and Territory through which the road may pass.
W–384
Privilege does not attach on the filing and acceptance of the articles
of incorporation and proofs of organization, but on definite location,
either by actual construction or filing a map. VIII–115
Where a right of way has been duly approved, the transfer of the
line to another company carries the right of way with it, and the
approval of a new map is unnecessary. II–543
Act of March 3, 1875, applicable to “public land strip.” W–384
390 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
Right of Way and Station Grounds—Continued.
The grant of right of way (Pacific roads) was an absolute and uncon-
ditional present grant, and all persons acquiring any portion of the
public lands after the passage of the act took it subject to the right
of way conferred by it for the proposed road. II–846
The question of priority between two roads claiming right of way
under act of March 3, 1875, must be determined in the courts.
I–396
In the absence of statutory authority granting right of way through
the Puyallup Indian Reservation, an application therefor should
be addressed to Congress. VII—450
The act of March 3, 1875, is applicable to the Denver and Rio Grande
Railroad Company and not inconsistent with the act of 1872.
VIII–41
Timber may not be taken from lands adjacent to one part of the road
for the purposes of constructing another part. VIII–41
The right to take material from the public land conferred by the acts
of 1872 and 1875, as defined by the word “adjacent,” does not ex-
tend beyond the tier of sections through which the right of way
passes, and an additional tier of sections on either side. VIII–41
Lands 150 miles distant from the road are not “adjacent " thereto in
the meaning of the statute. VII–541
The right to take material for construction purposes is limited to
“adjacent " lands. VII–541
Additional lands under the second section of the act of July 1, 1862,
not granted except upon full showing as to the necessity for the
land. - III–587
Each station as located must represent its particular section of 10
miles. IV—525
Depots, station houses, etc., not included in the term “railroad.”
VIII–41
River.
(See Survey.)
Saline Land and Salt Springs. (See States and Territories ; Mineral
Land.)
Saline lands not expressly reserved by law or order, but merely by
markings on the official plats, are subject to agricultural claim on
proof of non-saline character, and the claim relates back to date
of settlement or filing. II–847
The failure of the plats to show the saline character does not subject
the land to entry, for the statute reserves all salines, whether
marked on the plat or not. II–851
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 391
School Land.
I. GENERALLY.
II. INDEMINITY.
I. GENERALLY.
Reservation of lands to a Territory for the benefit of schools is not a
grant, but an act with a view to a grant, the government in the
mean time retaining control of the land (W. T). 1–632; WI–71
An act reserving lands in a Territory (Wyoming) has the same force,
so far as the reservation goes, as a grant for the same purpose to a
State. v–216; VIII–495
The legal title remains in the government, the land being only re-
served for a prescribed purpose (Utah). I–632
Distinction noted between the “grant” made to California and the
“ reservation ” for Utah. I–632
The title of the State vests, if at all, at the date of survey, and if the
land is in fact mineral, though not then known to be such, the sub-
sequent discovery of its mineral character will not affect the title
of the State. VI—412; Ix–408
The State (Colorado) entitled to sections 16 and 36, if said sections
were not known to contain mineral when the survey was ap-
proved; and the discovery of mineral after approval of the survey
will not defeat the title of the State. VII–459
Title to, does not pass by an irregular survey, apparently inaccurate,
and subsequently set aside (California). VII–459
Mineral lands excepted from the grants to California. WI–494
A partial survey, declared final, showing all or part of a school sec-
tion within a grant is the final survey contempleted in section 6 of
the act of July 23, 1866. III–306
Settlement upon, when the grant therefor takes effect defeats the
claim of the State. III–229
On which settlement or cultivation was found at survey did not pass
to the State (California). I–338, 403
Settlement on, prior to survey excludes the land from the reservation
for school purposes; but a purchaser, after survey, from such
settler acquires no right against the State. X–348
The right of settier on, prior to survey, is personal and can not inure
to the benefit of another. I-403; Iv–169; v-408; x–419
A prior settlement claim can not be set up against a selection of,
except in the interest of such settler. X–263
A purchase after survey of the possessory right and improvements
of one who settles on, prior to survey confers no right as against
the State. IX—554
A purchase after survey of the possessory right of one who settled
prior thereto, confers no right as against the grant. VIII–495
392 DIGEST OF LANL) DECISIONS.
I. GENERALLY-Continued. -
If one who has settled prior to survey abandons his claim, the fact of
such settlement can not be set up by a third party to defeat the
title of the State. IX—408
Settled on at survey and subsequently abandoned vests in the State
as of the date of survey. .. VI-71, 439
Prečmptor, alleging settlement before survey allowed to submit final
proof though he had failed to file for the land within the statutory
period. W–14
On failure of settler, prior to survey, to perfect his claim, the title to
the land vests in the State (California) as of the date of survey.
I-403
Settler prior to survey claiming as a prečmptor must assert his claim
within the legal period or the right of the State will take effect as
of the date of survey (Colorado). I–630
Failure of settler before survey to assert his claim within statutory
period does not inure to the benefit of the reservation (Utah). I–632
Intent of legislation for Washington Territory in line with the gen-
eral law with respect to settlement at survey. WI–74
The protection extended by the act of February 26, 1859, is limited
to those who have, prior to the survey in the field, made a settle-
ment with a view to prečmption. IX—554
Settlers upon, under act of 1853, should submit final proof within
reasonable time after survey. III–233
Claim of homesteader, where settlement was made after survey sent
to the board of equitable adjudication. III–383
Though embraced in a private claim, it will pass under the grant to
the State if in fact “not sold or otherwise disposed of by any act of
Congress " when the grant became effective. IX—553
Order of March 24, 1885, suspending action on mineral applications
for School lands revoked. IV—531
Circular regulations of November 16, 1888, with respect to Wyoming
school lands. VII–585
Irregularity in the form and place of section 16, arising from the sur-
vey of the township, will not defeat the grant. VIII–560
No authority except in Congress to dispose of lands reserved for the
use of schools. IX—333
A legislative reservation of, not defeated by a subsequent executive
reservation of the land for military purposes (Michigan). VIII–560
Lands selected for educational purposes are reserved from the opera-
tion of the timber-land act of June 3, 1878. WI-696
The Department has no authority to permit lar tº reserved for the use
of schools to be used for cemetery purposes. IX—333
Sections 16 and 36, embraced within the lands excluded from the
Fort Sanders Reservation, are reserved for school purposes and
not subject to entry. VII–548
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 393
I. GENERALLY –Continued.
Applications to file coal declaratory statements may be received for
sections 16 and 36, with due opportunity for the State (Colorado)
to be heard. VII–490
The Territory (W. T.) can not control or make disposition of lands
reserved for school purposes. IV—390
The surveyor-general of California is the authorized agent of that
State in the adjustment of the school grant. WI–403
Possession entered into, after survey, under Territorial authority not
legal. IV—390
Under certain acts Arsenal Island was surveyed and set apart to the
board of St. Louis public schools, and the selection approved ;
under the law (Sec. 2449, R. S.) the title of the United States was
by the approval fully vested in the public schools and their grantees.
II–457
Grant of, compared with the swamp grant and a similar rule of con-
struction held applicable. tº VIII–310
II. INDEMNITY.
Indemnity selections, circular instructions of July 23, 1885. IV-79
Circular of July 29, 1887, cited in full with approval. WI–702
The right to select lieu lands vests immediately upon the legal as-
certainment that a school section is reserved for public use. III–327
The State acquires no right to land as school indemnity prior to the
selection thereof. IX—139
Where the fee is in the government at survey but the land is so in-
cumbered that title can not fully vest in the State (Colorado), an
equivalent therefor may be taken by the State, or it may elect to
await the union of title and possession in the government and then
take the land specifically granted. VI–412
Selection of, excludes the land covered thereby from entry. X—263
Selection of, though invalid, reserves the laud from other disposition.
v1–439; VII—350
A selection of indemnity under act of February 26, 1859, recorded
and uncanceled, appropriates the land and reserves it from other
disposal. II–626
Approved indemnity selections are as fully reserved as the sections
in place. W–216
Territorial school indemnity selections reserve the land covered
thereby. W–216
Title acquired by valid selection will not be impaired in the hands
of the State's grantee by a subsequent duplication of the basis.
VIII–480
A pending indemnity selection will not bar the State from the asser.
tion of its right to the section in place. IX—553
394 IDIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
II. INDEMNITY –Continued.
The State may change the description of an indemnity school selec-
tion to include the identical land according to United States sur-
vey in case stated. III–401
A selection not invalid under the circular of July 23, 1885, because
slightly in excess of the basis. VI-702; VII-580
Basis of indemnity selection to be indicated. IV-79
Selection made upon a basis defective in part is invalid as to the
entire selection. VI–699
Misdescription in basis resulting from clerical error will not invali-
date selection where the rights of others were not prejudiced thereby.
WI–7()?
Defect in basis for selection may be cured by amendment or relin-
Quishment, but the right of the State takes effect only from the
date when the defect was Secured. VI—699
The imiproper description of the basis as a portion of section 36 will
not defeat a selection made in fact upon a deficiency caused by the
non existence of sections 16 and 36. VII-580
A selection on a basis already used in a prior selection is invalid, but
the defect may be cured, in the absence of an adverse claim, by
cancellation or relinguish meut of the first selection. X—303
Indemnity not allowed for losses alleged in an unsurveyed township.
VI-.824
Indemnity selection resting upon a loss alleged prior to survey of the
township in which such basis is situated is not void, but voidable,
and becomes valid, in the absence of an intervening right, from the
date when the loss is definitely ascertained. VII–347
A selection (lefective in part is invalid as a whole upon the face of
the record (California). IV—76
Indemnity selection, inade on a valid basis, but covering, in part,
lands excluded from selection may be approved as to the tracts
subject to selection. VI-680, 699; v1.11–72
The State is not authorized to select double minimum land in lieu of
lost single minimum school sections. Iv–76; V–543; VI-696
The State is entitled to select indemnity of the character and class it
would have received had there been no deficiency. VIII–32
Where the basis would have been double minimum, if it had not been
reserved for school purposes, the State (Minnesota) is entitled to
select double minimum land. VIII–31
An indemnity selection of double minimum land may be confirmed,
in the absence of an intervening claim, where such land was re-
duced in price prior to final action on the selection. WI–571
Double minimum land may be taken in lieu of double minimum loss,
but not for single minimum loss (Louisiana). VIII–126
Twice the amount specified in section 2276, Revised Statutes, will be
allowed for deficiencies where two sections to each township were
granted to the State. WI-696
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 395.
II. INDEMNITY –Continued.
Indemnity may be allowed for the loss of section 36 in a fractional
township, prior to the subdivision of such township, if the exterior
lines thereof are established, and the loss thus made certain. x–498
Selections on behalf of different fractional townships should be so
apportioned that each township will receive credit for the amount
to which it is entitled. X-498.
For lands not in place the basis of selection indicated by description
of fractional township. & IV—79
Indemnity for losses occasioned by fractional sections taken under
the act of February 26, 1859 (W. T.). W–216
The State is entitled to indemnity in lieu of land covered by settle-
ment claims at date of survey. v–218, 543; VII-270
Settlement on, prior to and existing at survey excepts the land from
the grant, and entitles the State to select indemnity so long as the
claim of the settler exists. VIII–495
Indemnity selection for land covered by settlement at survey releases
the basis from reservation. WI–71
When selection has been made, title to the land selected passes to
the State, which at the same time is divested of all right to there-
after claim the tract used as the basis, whether the settlement claim
therefor is made good or not. VII-270
If the State makes a selection in lieu of land covered by settlement
at survey, the reservation is transferred from the basis to the in-
demnity; and by the same act the claim to the basis is relinquished
and the land opened to entry. VIII–394
The Territory is not bound to select indemnity for land covered by
settlement at survey, but may await the action of the settler
(W. T.). WI–71
If one who has settled prior to survey subsequently thereto abandons
the land the title of the State attaches to the school section as of
the date of survey, and the right of the State to select indemnity
Côa SęS. VIII–495
Settlement prior to survey extends only to those tracts on which
improvements are placed, and the indemnity therefor is measured
by the extent of the settler's appropriation. X–348
The act of August 9, 1888, does not authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to recognize settlement rights acquired after survey and
require the Territory (Wyoming) to select indemnity therefor.
VIII-495
Authority of county commissioners to make indemnity selections
under the act of 1853 (W. T.) W–216
The county commissioners are not authorized to select lands in lieu
of sections 16 and 36, unless actual settlers occupied them prior to
survey; after survey said sections were not subject to prečmption
entry. II–626
396 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
II. INDEMNITY –Continued.
A selection improperly allowed, because of a prior pending claim,
may be allowed to stand on the removal of such claim from the
record. VI-680; VIII–72
The act of May 20, 1826, construed by subsequent legislation. V–546
Under the act of 1826 the State (Louisiana) is not entitled to in-
demnity for sections in place, but covered by private grants.
VIII–126
The act of May 20, 1826, authorizes selections on account of sections
in place, but lost to the State (Louisiana) by reason of being in-
cluded within confirmed private claims. IX—157
The act of 1826 includes selections for “radiating” and other irregu-
lar surveys (Louisiana). VIII–126
The selections authorized by the act of May 20, 1826, are not “lieu"
selections. - VIII–563
The acts of May 20, 1826, and February 26, 1859, determine what
lands are subject to indemnity selection. W–545
School indemnity selections for lands covered by private claims prior
to the survey of such claims are invalid. III–89
The essential thing was the selection of the lieu land for a portion of
section 16 (Missouri) disposed of; and the selection and entry wested
title in the State. II–496
Informal notation on the record of the words “set aside " does not
constitute a rejection of the selection. V—352
Certification, when made, relates back and takes effect as of the
(late of Survey. IX—413
Selection, certification, and approval pass the title to school land as
fully as though transferred by patent, and the Department is
without authority to set aside said certification and cancel the se-
lection. Ix–106, 636
A selection of land subject thereto, approved and certified, precludes
the allowance of another selection in lieu thereof until such cer-
tification shall be set aside by proper authority. VII–91
Invalid selection, approved and certified, can only be canceled on
the judgment of a court. t IX—106
Certification on indemnity selection of land to which a prior adverse
right had attached is null and void. I–494
Alabama.
By the enabling act and act of admission the State of Alabama was
invested with the legal title to every sixteenth section, according
to the surveys, irrespective of the character of the lands upon
which they were located, and in case of previous disposal thereof
the right to indemnity existed in the same character of land.
- WI–493
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 397
II. INDEMINITY –Continued.
Alabama—Continued.
The legislation subsequent to the enabling act (Alabama), while re-
sulting in a particular method for the disposition of mineral land,
did not repeal that act or abridge the right of the State to the six-
teenth section or to select indemnity therefor. WI–493.
The act of March 3, 1883, did not operate to reserve lands reported
as containing coal and iron from selection until after public offer-
ing (Alabama). WI–493.
California.
In the adjustment of the grant the surveyor-general of the State may
appoint an attorney to represent the State, or revoke such an
appointment when made if the power conferred thereunder is not
coupled with an interest. WI–403.
The rejection of an application to purchase under the act of March
1, 1877, will not bar a second application by the same party based
on a different claim. VIII–326
The act of March 1, 1877, confirmed to the State all invalid selections,
made prior thereto, except (1) for lands occupied by bona fide set-
tlers prior to certification, (2) those mentioned in the first proviso
to the second section, and (3) selections in lieu of sections which
had been surveyed in place and the title to which had vested in the
State at the date of said selections. WI-302, 552
Selections made for losses alleged through conflicting Mexican grant,
and approved before the act of 1877, were confirmed by the second
section of said act, though on final Survey of the said grant, or
survey of the public lands, it transpires that the school lands were
not lost as alleged, and as the result of such confirmation of the
United States resumed ownership of the bases. VI-302, 552
If full compensation has been received on account of a fractional
township, further selections will not be allowed on the ground that
the basis in the original selection was improperly described as a
part of sections 16 and 36; and this rule applies whether such se-
lections were made before or after the act of March 1, 1877.
VIII–307
A selection, resting upon a basis already exhausted by a prior ap-
proved selection, is not confirmed by section 2, act of March 1, 1877.
IX—106
If by public survey, approved after the passage of the act of March
1, 1877, a school section is found in place, and not within a Mexican
grant, a selection made in lieu thereof is confirmed by said act,
although the final survey of the grant which excluded the school
section was made prior to the passage of said act and date of Se-
lection. WI–552
Indemnity selection is not confirmed by the act of 1877, if the basis
therefor was found in place and subject to the grant. I–403
398 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
II. INDEMINITY –Continued.
California—Continued.
A certified selection which fails by reason of the basis being excluded
from the final Survey of a Mexican grant is confirmed by section
2 of act of March 1, 1877, though the final survey of the grant
was prior to the passage of the act. IX—208
An applicant for the right of purchase under the act of March 1,
1877, is “an innocent purchaser” if his vendor held without notice
of defect in the State's title. VIII–326
Indemnity selections certified prior to the act of March 1, 1877, for
losses alleged in townships made fractional by the segregation of
swamp lands, will not be disturbed. VIII–4, 24
Right of purchase under the act of March 1, 1877, not defeated by
the erroneous cancellation of a selection. VIII–326
Irregular selections of lands sold to innocent purchasers prior to the
act of July 23, 1866, confirmed by section 1 of said act. VIII–480
Invalid indemnity school selections upon unsurveyed land disposed
of prior to July 23, 1866, confirmed on the State's indicating an
equivalent acreage for the invalid basis. III–401
Colorado.
The grant to Colorado was of the sixteenth and thirty-sixth sections
where such sections, at the date of survey, had not been sold or
otherwise disposed of, with the right to indemnity if such sections,
at the time of survey, were not subject to the grant. WI–412
Sections appearing as minental at date of Survey do not pass under
the grant, but the State (Col.) is entitled to indemnity therefor.
WI–412
Selections in Colorado in lieu of mineral lands in sections 16 and 36;
circular provisions of March 23, 1887. W–696
*he State (Col.) entitled to indemnity for, within the Ute reserva-
tion. WI–412
Scrip. (See Private Claims; States and Territories.)
Identity of assignee must appear. I–300
Erasures in assignment of, must be accounted for. I–301
Assignment of, in blank not accepted. I—301; II–430
Assignment of, required from the legal representative of the party to
whom it was issued. I–302
Attorney in fact must show authority for assignment of. I–302
Two pieces for one hundred and sixty acres each may issue in lieu of
one for three hundred and twenty acres. I—303
Where there is a discrepancy in the spelling of names, affidavit as to
the true orthography and identity of persons is required.
II–430, 431
Returned if the entry, made by specific location fails. I–533
Returns from local office on location; circular of December 4, 1889.
IX—657
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 399
Scrip—Continued.
Commissioner may order a hearing to determine the validity of a loca-
tion. VIII–207
A location made in accordance with the law passes title out of the
|United States. VIII–207
Location by one holding scrip in violation of law, confers no title.
VIII–207
Validity of claims may be passed upon where adverse claimants vol-
untarily appear at a hearing. VIII–207
Is money within the meaning of section 2262, Revised Statutes, if
used in payment for the land. II–599
Failure to show title in the claimed assignee of indemnity scrip ren-
ders it unavailable in his name. III–44
Location of, upon unsurveyed lands, confers only a preference right
to perfect the location after survey as against every one except the
United States; but until after the location is adjusted the gov.
ernment has full power to dispose of the land covered thereby.
X–365
Location of, prior to survey, may not be enlarged to the detriment of
subsequent claims. I–431
Adjustment of a location to the lines of the public survey does not
validate a location theretofore invalid. VIII–207
Where the scrip was assigned to a person unknown, the name of the
assignee erased, and the claimants inserted, the latter is required
to show title and account for the erasure. III–142
The execution of an act authorizing the issuance of, having been sus-
pended by joint resolution of Congress, precludes further action by
the Department. VI–13
Right of locator to act as the agent of the party to whom the scrip
was originally issued not material where its possession had been
awarded another. WI–101
Application for, if the matter is not res judicata, should be addressed
to the Commissioner of the General Land Office or the surveyor-
general. - WI-374
Applicant for, under the act of 1858 must show himself to be the legal
representative of the confirmee. V–570
Authority of law for the issue of Wyandotte scrip not questioned.
III–444
Land open to pre-emption and settlement subject to Wyandotte lo-
cation. III–443.
Lands withdrawn for railroad purposes and restored to “homestead
and pre-emption entry only” not subject to Supreme Court loca-
tion. III–319
Issued under the act of June 22, 1860, locatable only on land subject
to private cash entry. X-616
400 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS,
Scrip—Continued.
Application for the reinstatement of certain canceled Chippewa loca-
tions in the Mille Lac Reservation refused on the ground that the
matter was res judicata. III–196
Location of Gerard, limited to “public lands.” IX-114
Sioux half-breed, may be reissued in smaller denomination at any
time prior to location. W–695
No authority in the Department to accept the relinquishment of, is-
sued under the act of July 17, 1854, adjudge the ownership thereof,
and issue new scrip of lesser denomination in its place. VI-648
Sioux half breed, is not subject to transfer. VIII–207
Transfer of Sioux half-breed, effected through powers of attorney will
not be recognized. VIII–207
Issued to the Sioux half-breed, requires in location on unsurveyed
land a showing of improvements made for his benefit. VIII–207
Improvements made for the benefit of one claiming the right of loca-
tion under a power of attorney are not within the intent of the
law. VIII–207
Sioux half-breed, not locatable upon “occupied” land. III–557
Sioux half-breed, may not be located on land withdrawn for a railroad
(Northern Pacific) while an Indian reservation and afterwards re-
leased. II–520
Porterfield, may be located upon offered or unoffered land and upon
land within the incorporated limits of a town. - I–497
No merely defacto appropriation will defeat a Porterfield location. I-497
Porterfield may be located upon any surveyed land of the United
States, not mineral, and not legally appropriated. I–497
Temporary order of Commissioner reserving land from appropriation
defeats a Porterfield location. III–217
Porterfield, not locatable upon land dedicated by statute to munici-
pal uses. X–37.5
Valentine may not be located on a tract in Chicago, formed by accre.
tion after survey on the lake shore of the section. II–338
Valentine, not locatable within the corporate limits of a city or town
site. V-3S2
Right to locate Valentine scrip on lake front in Chicago res judicata.
* W–382
Valentine, not locatable upon unsurveyed lands within the Territories
lying below high-water mark, and above low-water mark. x–365
Lands occupied and within the corporate limits of a city not subject
to Valentine location. * * III–200
Valentine may be located on lots made by union of small tracts in
adjoining quarter sections. II–460
Valentine may not be located on land covered by a prečmption claim.
II–594
DIGEST of LAND DECISIONs. 401
Scrip—Continued.
Valentine may not be located on lands valuable mainly for pine tim-
ber within the reservation in Michigan for the Ottawa and Chip-
pewa Indians. II–190
Secretary of the Interior. (See Land Department.)
Selections. (See Railroad Grant ; School Land ; States and Terri-
tories ; Swamp Land.)
Seminole Lands. (See Oklahoma s Town Site.)
Circular of April 1, 1889, directing the manner of disposition under
the act of March 2, 1889. VIII–336
Proclamation of the President opening to entry. VIII–341
Settlement. (See Filing ; Residence.)
I. GENERALLY.
II. HOMESTEAD.
III. OSAGE LAND.
IV. PREjäMPTION.
I. GENERALLY.
Date of, is question of mixed law and fact. I–445
Actual date of settlement may be shown on contest or in final proof.
1–444; III–380
In contest the true date of, may be shown, though it be earlier than
alleged in the application. III–103
Priority of, is protected only under legal assertion of right. IV-387
A legal claim of settlement does not amount to a grant. III–318
Rights extinguished by Executive order creating reservation.
I–30, 450, 451; VIII–502
Not followed by residence confers no right under any of the settle-
ment laws. IV—339
Is a personal act, and prior to such an act neither the ownership of
the improvements, nor residence, cultivation, or improvement by
an agent, cam have any legal effect. II–188
Tº ests on acts nerformed in nerson hw the nartv claiminor the hanafit
-a-v v 3 vº • * * ~~~~~ 1.2 - * * ~ * * * * ~ *-* * * * r * * * ~ * ~~ ~ J v---~ tº “ - ~J --~~~~~~~~ *> * *-* - ~ * * * ~ * * *
thereof. VIII–623
A settler is a person who, intending to initiate a claim under any
law of the United States for the disposition of the public domain,
does some act connecting himself with the particular tract claimed,
said act being equivalent to an announcement of such inten-
tion, and from which the public generally may have notice of his
claim. II–628
Act of, complete from the instant the settler goes upon the land with
the intention of making it his home, and performs some act indica.
tive of such intent. III–294; X–582
10464––26
402 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
I. GENERALLY-Continued.
Effected by one, who goes upon public land with the intention of
making it his home, and does some act in execution of that inten-
tion sufficient to give notice thereof to the public. VIII–176; X-25
Consists in substantial improvement, permanent in character, with
intent to appropriate the land. III–162, 295
Must be made in person upon unappropriated land. III–380
“Picking” a small patch of ground and erecting a cross are not acts
of. III–162
By driving stakes to indicate the site of a house, at a time when he
admits the right to the land to be in another, one does not perform
an act of settlement. II–184
Not effected by the arrangement of a few logs in the form of a square.
II–26; III–449
Going on the land and erecting thereon a board with a statement
of his claim upon it, and then leaving the Territory, is not a good
settlement. II–621
Long-continued occupancy of land as a home, and the cultivation and
improvement thereof, are acts that indicate an intention to claim
the land under the settlement laws. X–637
Rights not obtained by occupation as tenant. III–46;
IV-259, 412; x-582
No rights acquired by one who remains on public land through the
consent of others, and without asserting any right of his own, or
performing the acts required of a settler. X-510
Acts done as an agent (digging a ditch) are not acts of settlement.
II–173
Acts done by an agent (plowing and hauling lumber) are not acts
of Settlement. II–175
No one can acquire a settlement right on public land through acts
performed by an agent. VI-521
Residence, cultivation, and improvement by an agent, prior to per-
sonal settlement, are of no legal effect. II–188
... 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. II–135
Must be the act of the claimant himself, and the rights dependent
on it are not enlarged by the prior settlement and Occupation of
another, who has sold his prečmption rights to the claimant.
II–560
Rights not acquired by one who enters upon and retains possession
of land under contract of purchase from another. VIII–207
Rights are not acquired by the purchase of the possessory rights and
improvements of another. VIII–623; Ix—329
Purchase of improvements by a prior settler does not make his date
of settlement available to the Vendee. II–188
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 403
I. GENERALLY –Continued.
Sale of improvements by one holding a possessory claim while con-
ferring no right under the settlement laws is not in violation
thereof. IX—139
The purchase and repair of improvements made by a prior settler
constitute a good settlement. III–354
Purchase of improvements equivalent to making.
III–100; IV–56; V-239
The assertion of a possessory right to land does not confer any right
thereto under the settlement laws. - VII–165
In the absence of actual, the ownership of improvements on public
land or the use of such land for ranch purposes does not confer
any right under the settlement laws. X–276
Based on forcible intrusion confers no right.
1–424; IV-388, 411, 501; V–377
Rights to the detriment of one in possession under color of title can
not be acquired by acts of trespass. VII–68, 92
A growing crop of grain on land is quite as much notice of possession
as an inclosure thereof. - VII–92
Ruling in Atherton v. Fowler applicable only in case of forcible in-
trusion. Iv–140, 388
The Atherton-Fowler doctrine is not to be extended to cases where
the prior settler is a mere trespasser or has disregarded statutory
requirements. I–423, 424; II–45
Rights based on unlawful possession can not be set up as against the
lawful appropriation of another. IV—560
Made peaceably upon an uninclosed part of a forty occupied by a
prior settler is lawful. II–630
Made without violence, within the unlawful inclosure of another, is
valid and will not be defeated by said unlawful occupancy.
* VII–340; IX—455
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, which the entryman continuously asserted under
color of law, even after relinquishment of the entry (in 1878) for
the purpose of changing it to a timber-culture claim. II–44
A settled in July, 1881, on land not subject to homestead or pre-
êmiption, 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 prečmption
declaratory statement, which was rejected by the local office be-
cause 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. II–597
404 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
I. GENERALLY-Continued.
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 trespasser on the second tract, and a third
person is not bound by notice of his homestead settlement and im-
provements. II–576
Begun clandestinely and residence maintained by fraud and violence
confers no rights. III–192
Under contract with supposed owner not trespass. V—239
Improvements existing upon an abandoned claim are no bar to set-
tlement. III–100
Peaceable settlement may lawfully be made on a part of a forty al-
ready settled on by another, but not in his actual possession by
inclosure or otherwise. II–630
Rights on land formerly covered by railroad indemnity withdrawal
recognized after revocation of the withdrawal. WI–382
On land withdrawn for indemnity purposes confers no right.
VI—543; VIII-355, 570; x–85
No rights of, acquired on lands reserved by competent authority.
X—513
Not effective if made on land covered by an entry or otherwise ap-
propriated. I–52; III–344, 553; V–147, 238; VIII–243
No rights are acquired by settlement while the land is within a res-
ervation (Indian or military). II–521, 604
On military reservation with knowledge of the existing reservation
not legalized by the act of July 5, 1884. X–489
On appropriated tract no basis for claim to adjoining unappropriated
land. W-289
On abandoned homestead claims, uncanceled, gives no rights; set-
thers must exercise diligence in ascertaining the fact of cancella-
tion of the entries. - II–89
Upon land covered by a homestead entry confers no right so long as
the entry remains uncanceled. III–562
On land covered by an entry, must be accompanied by residence, or
other evidence of occupation, in order to take effect on cancellation
of the entry. II–26, 123
On land embraced within the entry of another confers no right as
against the entryman or the government. WI–248, 330, 709; VII–212
Upon land covered by the entry of another confers no right as
against the entryman who complies with the law. VIII–2:7
Priority of, may be considered as between settlers on land covered
by the subsisting entry or appropriation of another. IV—410;
v–147, 239, 361; VI—248, 330, 709; VII–212
Priority of, on land not subject thereto, may be considered as between
claimants therefor. IX—89
DIGEST of LAND DECISIONs. 405
I. GENERALLY –Continued.
Acts of, on land within a railroad grant may, on the forfeiture of
said grant and restoration of the land, be considered in determin-
ing priority between two settlers. - WI–709
Where two settlers were on land covered by desert entry at the date
of its cancellation a partition of the land was directed. III–72
No new act of, required of one on land at the date of its becoming
subject to. I–444, 445; V-250
On land covered by entry takes effect eo instanti on the cancellation
of the same. I-112,443; IV-447
Right of one residing on land covered by the entry of another at-
taches eo instanti on relinquishment of said entry, and is superior
to the right acquired by an entry made immediately after said re-
linquishment. WI–246
Status of adverse existing settlement in case of simultaneous relin-
Quishment and application. IV—125
A settled (prečmption) in 1879 and filed April 20, 1880; B settled on
April 27, 1880, and filed two days after; A relinquished May 14,
and made homestead entry May 17, 1880; held that B's settlement
took effect on relinquishment. II–620
On cancellation of an entry under contest a bona fide settler then on
the land is entitled to the right of entry as against every one except
the successful contestant. VIII–597
On land covered by the entry of another is subject to the superior
right of a contestant who secures the cancellation of such entry.
IX—269
Acts of, performed while the land was not subject thereto may be
considered in determining the question of good faith. WI–636
Prior to survey confers no vested interest in the land. VIII–541
Priority of, before survey when marked by boundaries will be pro-
tected as against Subsequent settlers. I—414
Prior to survey, marked by distinct boundaries, may not be enlarged
to the injury of subsequent settlers. I–414, 431
Where valuable improvements exist on one forty, and three others
adjoining were regularly cultivated, and part of a fifth forty acci-
dentally, there is no claim to the fifth forty. II–589
Upon surveyed land, should be of such character and so open and
notorious as to be notice to the public of the extent of the claim.
III–76; IX—38; X-234
Notice by a prior settler to another to keep his stock away from a
tract valuably improved by the former, is sufficient notice of claim
to the forty in which said improvements are found by the survey
to be. II–588
And improvement before survey on land included within the known
settlement right of another are invalid as against the prior settler.
VIII–630
406 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
I. GENERALLY –Continued.
Conflicting rights acquired prior to survey adjusted through agree-
ment of the parties. VIII–536
Joint entry allowed in case of conflicting settlements before survey.
II–104,150,588; III–609; IV-520; V-605; WI–138,826; VII–3; winſ–536;
X-234
Should be so marked in the matter of improvements as to give notice
of the extent of the Settler's claim. W–372; VI–324
The notice given by improvements and, extends only to the quarter
section as defined by the public survey. V-141, 556; VI-151, 172;
VII–76
Slightly marked on heavily timbered land is not notice as to the ex-
tent of the claim outside of the quarter section settled upon. IV–73
Does not extend to non-contiguous tracts. WI-621
Recognized though made outside of inclosure where the sectional
subdivision extends inside of the inclosure. I–429
Of an alien confers no right under the public-land laws.
1–489; Iv–139; VI-485; x–463
Of an alien becomes valid from the date of filing declaration of in-
tention to become a citizen. WI–485
Of an alien, on unsurveyed land, protected through his subsequent
declaration of intention to become a citizen, and declaratory state-
ment filed when the land became subject thereto. VIII–536
Of one becoming qualified to make, while on the land, dates from
such time. I–444
A settler is bound to take notice of established priorities. IV—170, 306
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 nec-
essary to the acquisition of title, another settler, on an adjacent
tract, can not, by a merely verbal claim or without attempting to re-
duce the tract to possession, acquire any right to it. II–186, 637
Right of settler not affected by the wrongful removal of his dwelling-
house by an adverse claimant. IV–139
Rights in conflict adjusted equitably where the legal status of the
claims is the same. WI–152
Right can not be acquired or maintained on different tracts at the
Same time. VIII–96, 200, 461; Ix–63
Rights under the homestead and prečmption laws can not be main-
tained for different tracts at the same time. X—419
On land for the purpose of securing the timber thereon, and not for
the purpose of a home, is not bona fide. VII–555
Rights on timber lands recognized by the act of June 3, 1878. WI-691
On lands chiefly valuable for their timber and stone, should be care-
fully scrutinized. VII–555
Not necessarily speculative or fraudulent because made near pros-
pective town site. III–434
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 407
I. GENERALLY –Continued.
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. II–56
Priority of right should be determined on hearing as between pre-
emptor and homesteader. v–526; VIII–528, 623
Circular of July 1, 1879, declaring invalid entry on land in the pos-
session of a settler, protected the contestant under it until it was
revoked. II–66
Bona fide settlement or improvement on land bars a subsequent ap-
plication under the timber and stone act. II–336
Where not protected by filing or entry, through the fault of another,
such person may not take advantage thereof. IV-15S
Not required of desert-land applicant and confers no right under the
desert-land act. III–326, 331
II. HOMESTEAD.
Rights of settler relate back to, under the act of May 14, 1880.
: I–84; VI—653
Settlement prior to act May 14, 1880, could inure to the settler's bene-
fit only under section 2273, Revised Statutes. II–575
The act of May 14, 1880, is not retroactive, so as to cut off a valid
adverse interest which had attached prior to its passage. II-575
Of homesteader is protected as against later settlers for three months
only, after which period the next settler in point of time, who has
complied with the law, is entitled to priority. W–624
Of homesteader only protected by the act of May 14, 1880, for the
statutory period, as against intervening settlement rights. WI-306
Of a homesteader on unoffered land protected as against other and
later settlers for the period of three months only by section 3, act
of May 14, 1880. VII–537
Under section 3, act May 14, 1880, can not be made on land covered
by a desert-land entry. II–26
Under section 3, act May 14, 1880, can not be made on land not sub-
ject to homestead entry (mineral). II–35
On a tract afterwards covered by a homestead entry which (upon
contest, rejected for want of corroborating witnesses) was relin-
Quished, takes effect immediately upon relinquishment under sec-
tion 3, act of May 14, 1880, when there have been occupation and
homestead application. II–117
In good faith on land covered by the entry of another will not de-
prive the settler of the benefit of the act of May 14, 1880, where
no adverse claim exists. VIII–448
A person resident on and intending to take as a homestead land cov-
ered by an uncanceled entry, upon cancellation, has three months
within which to file his claim. II–123
408 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
II. HOMESTEAD–Continued.
One will not be permitted, in the face of a contest for default against
his timber culture entry, to assert a homestead right initiated (by
building and improving) while the tract was covered by said entry.
II–265
A homestead settler, claiming priority over another who has made
entry, must make application for the land within the prescribed
period in order to obtain recognition of his rights; he can not have
them considered in a contest by him on the ground of fraudulent
entry or abandonment. II–119, 620
Climatic reason for failure to make, not accepted in the absence of
good faith. - IV—393
Where two settled prior to survey on a forty, agreeing on a boundary,
and both claimed duly, one as prečmptor, the other as homesteader,
they may make joint entry. II–585
Where there was improvement by two settlers on the same 40-acre
tract, with an agreed boundary line, and they each duly made home-
stead entry embracing it, a joint cash entry is allowed; but if
either refuses to unite therein within ninety days from notice, the
entire tract is awarded to the other. II–104, 150
Where three persons embraced a 40-acre tract in their homestead
entries, the entry of one of them, who had no improvement on it
prior to the filing of the plats, must be canceled. II–105
Where one was actually in possession of 160 acres at the passage of
the acts of March 3, 1879, and May 14, 1880 (though prior thereto
he could enter but 80 acres), he was entitled to enter it as a home-
stead. II–141
Where there has been bona fide settlement and a prečmption or
homestead claim duly made after filing of the plats, a temporary
absence of the settler prior to making claim does not forfeit the
right. II–337
III. OSAGE LAND.
If the settlement is not bona fide, but for the benefit of another, the
settler is not an “actual settler” under the act of May 28, 1880
VIII–173
An “actual settler” under the act of May 28, 1880, is one who goes
upon the land intending to make it his home, and does some act
thereon indicating such intention, and sufficient to give notice
thereof to the public. VIII–173; X–36
An “actual settler” on Osage trust and diminished reserve is one
who has made bona fide residence and improvement. II–187;
V–303, 442, 537; VII-278; IX–98; X-23
IV PREEMPTION.
Is the sole basis of the prečmptive right, and such right is not greater
nor less than the Settlement. II–637; V-274
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 4.09
IV. PREEMPTION.—Continued.
Under the preemption law there is a recognized distinction between
settlement and residence. VIII–503
Date of, is a matter of proof without respect to allegation in declara-
tory statement. I–444
To constitute a legal act of, there must be an entry upon the land
with the intent to appropriate it, and an act indicative of such
intent ; and the two must harmonize. III–294
And filing confer an inchoate right under the prečmption law which
will be protected. !—333; IX—41
Act of, may be valid without residence, but residence must follow
within a reasonable period after settlement. III–218, 553
Not constituted under prečmption law by mere intention. III-295
Extent of claim may be determined by the location of the improve-
ments and the land included in the declaratory statement.
IV-401; VI—249
On segregated land confers no right of prečmption. W–289
Prečmption claimant on land at cancellation of another's entry is a
settler without the performance of any new act of settlement.
III–218, 553
And filing do not reserve land from timber culture entry, though
notice of the preemptor's priority of right is given thereby. IX—262
Prior to inception of adverse claim, good, though made after filing.
III–373, 499; IV-424; VI—232; VIII–504
Held good for prečmption claim where the settler on the same day had
abandoned and relinquished a former homestead entry. III–102
By a minor, is invalid under the prečmption law; but the defect is
cured, if, in the absence of an adverse claim, he attains his major-
ity prior to making entry. IX—297
Change of, does not affect rights of settler until after filing declara-
tory statement. IX—139
Of one who has exhausted his prečmptive right is invalid under the
preemption law. Iv–560; V-16
The mere purchase of improvements does not constitute an act of, but
when settlement follows such purchase the improvements are held
as though made by the prečmptor. III–100
One who settles or resides on public land as the tenant of another,
who claims it, can not thereby legally establish a claim to the land
in his own right. . III–46
Speculative settlement may be proved by a contract made before
entry to convey the land after entry. II–781
Of a prečmptor, who fails to file in time, is not protected as against
the next settler who has complied with the law. II–578; III–455;
VI-391; x–485
Though insufficient to support a filing, may be made good subse-
Quently in the absence intervening adverse claim. WI-232
410 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
IV. PREEMPTION.—Continued.
Where the claimant abandoned the subdivision on which he had set-
tled, and thereafter failed to connect himself with the remainder
of his claim until after an adverse right attached, he can not hold
as a prečmptor. III–92
When two settle on the same tract, the preferred right of purchase
by the prior settler depends on his having conformed to the other
provisions of law. e II—575
Sioux Indian Lands. (See Indian Lands.)
Soldiers' Homestead. (See Homestead.)
Special Agent. (See Practice, subtitle, Proceedings by the Govern.
ment.)
Stare Decisis.
The doctrine of, recognized and followed in departmental action.
1–239; V-92; x–396
Precedent followed unless clearly contrary to law. V-277, 713
Executive construction of a statute should not be changed except for
cogent reasons. * VIII–255, 279
States and Territories. (See School Land; Swamp Land.)
ALABAM.A. (See Mineral Lands.)
Vested rights under mining laws not affected by the act of March 3,
1883 (Ala.). IV—476
The State's selection of university lands should be admitted subject
to the legal claims of settlers. III–315
The presentation of a State selection has the force of an application
to enter. III–317
No substantial settlement claim or improvement should be prejudiced
by the act of April 23, 1884, granting lands to the State for univer-
sity purposes. III–317
ARKANSAS.
Where title has passed to the State under a railroad grant, no action
should be taken looking toward the issuance of patent to the State
for the same land under the Swamp grant. X–165
CALIF( )RNIA.
The States of California and Nevada allowed to take double minimum
land in satisfaction of the Agricultural College grant. V—j48
The Department has no authority to review transactions between the
State and its purchasers or agents. VI-403
The rejection of a State selection prior to the passage of the act of
July 23, 1866, will not remove said selection from the operation
thereof where notice of such action was not given the State.
VII–397
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 411
CALIFORNIA—Continued.
A location made under a warrant issued by the State in part satis-
faction of the internal improvement grant is within the confirma-
tory provisions of the first section of the act of July 23, 1866.
* - VII–543
The act of July 23, 1866, confirmed to the State irregular selections,
where the land covered thereby had been sold to purchasers in
good faith under the State law. VII–397
Patent issued to a purchaser from the State under section 1, act of
July 23, 1866, prevents a claim for the same tract under the swamp
grant. II–643
The purposes of the first section of the act of July 1, 1864, and the
sixth section of the act of 1866, should not be confounded, as one
relates to vesting title to private claims, and the other to settling
the right of lieu selections in the State. III–424
Section 7 of the act of July 23, 1866, was not repealed by the revision.
I–417
The right of purchase under the act of July 23, 1866, section 7, is as-
signable, and in the absence of an adverse claim should be ac-
corded to a purchaser in good faith after the final survey of the
grant. VII–210
The right of purchase under section 7, act of July 23, 1866, is as-
signable, and in the absence of an adverse claim extends to one
who purchases and enters into possession after final Survey ex-
cluding the land from the grant. IX—241
Right of purchase conferred by section 7, act of July 23, 1866, is
alienable, and descends to heirs upon the death of the purchaser.
IX—445
The satisfaction by Selection and patent of a Mexican grant of quan-
tity, within larger outboundaries, does not preclude the purchase
under section 7, act of July 23, 1866, of lands excluded from said
grant on final Survey. IX—241
The conditions under which the right of purchase is accorded by sec-
tion 7, act of July 23, 1866, specified. VIII–144
Applicant for the light of purchase under section 7, act of July 23,
1 Q Q Q --> w- c. 4- c, la re --- / 1 \ 4 l a + , , , ~~~~ Al 4', 4-i- 1, a -- ~~~, al-, -, c, a cl i a wo Al 4'Av, a wral
Louv, Ll_l Ui Nº U Sº i i U WW \ 1 ) i li CU U 1 ſil § Uvul 1a1 UL1 Li U ºut 1 U11 as Uu loviiu Lul a v cul-
uable consideration of Mexican grantees or assigns which was ex-
cluded from the final survey, and (2) has used, improved, and con-
tinued in the possession of said land according to the lines of orig-
inal put chase. IX—445
The conveyance of an undivided interest does not carry the right of
purchase under the act of 1866. VIII–144, 279
Right of purchase under section 7, act of July 23, 1866, is only con-
ferred upon one who purchased from Mexican grantees a definite
tract of land. VIII–144, 279
412 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
CALIFORNIA—Continued.
The right of purchase under section 7 dose not relate back to former
claimants, but extends to those then holding lands, purchased in
good faith before the rejection of the grant, and who had from date
of purchase to the passage of the act continued in actual posses-
sion thereof within definite boundaries. VIII–144
Whether parties who purchase a specific portion of a rejected grant,
and hold the same as co tenants, it is competent to enter the same
under section 7, act of July 23, 1866, in the absence of any valid
adverse claim : query. III–401
Right of purchase under section 7, act of July 23, 1866, not defeated
by the fact that the deed under which a claimant holds an undivided
interest in a Mexican grant does not describe the land by metes
and bounds, if the claimant thereunder enters into possession of a
tract marked by specific boundaries and continues to use and oc-
cupy the same according to the lines of the original purchase.
X–242
The phrase “according to the lines of their original purchase,” as
used in the act of 1866, Construed. X–248
A “purchaser in good faith,” under section 7, act of July 23, 1866,
defined (California). VIII–144
A settlement on land not subject thereto is not such an adverse claim
as will defeat the right of purchase under section 7 of said act.
IX—241
The right of purchase excludes the land covered thereby from the
general operation of the prečmption law. IX—445
The question of the applicant’s laches can not be raised by one claim-
ing an adverse right under the preemption law. IX—446
In the absence of general regulations or Statutory authority the De-
partment should not fix a time within which the right of purchase
under section 7 shall be exercised in a particular case. IX—446
Joint entry under section 7, act of July 23, 1866, is measured by the
joint occupancy of the parties. WI–434
Prima facie valid selections of record, under section 8, act of Septem-
ber 4, 1841, prior to survey by the government and renewed when
the plat of survey is filed, operate as a bar to any other disposition
of the land and may be certified to the State if found valid. x–217
Walid selections under section 8, act of September 4, 1841, do not de-
pend upon the act of July 23, 1866, for confirmation. X—200
One applying to purchase school lands from the State, is put upon
inquiry as to the State's title by the possession and cultivation of
another. IX—106
A mere applicant for the right of purchase from the State is not en-
titled to purchase under section 2, act of March 1, 1877, as a “pur-
chaser for a valuable consideration.” IX-106
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 413
CALIFORNIA—Continued.
The holder of a certificate of purchase from the State, not yet en-
titled to a patent, cannot claim the protection extended to the
“purchaser for a valuable consideration.” IX—106
An innocent purchaser from the State is protected under section 2,
act of March 1, 1877, whether the purchase was made before or
after the passage of the act. IX—106
Official notice to the State of the invalidity and cancellation of a
school selection is such notice to one applying to purchase there-
under from the State as to preclude him from pleading the status
of an innocent purchaser. IX—106
COLORADO.
The provisions in the act of March 3, 1875, requiring the State to
make its selection of salt springs within two years after the admission
of the State is directory only, and a failure to select within said
period does not work a forfeiture of the grant. X-222
The act of March 3, 1875, is not repealed by that of January 12, 1877,
nor does the proviso in the later act amount to a legislative decla-
ration that the right to select salt springs conferred by the act of
1875 expires at the end of two years after the admission of the
State. X-222
FLORIDA.
By the act of June 9, 1880, the right of the State (Florida) to select
indemnity is confined to “vacant unappropriated public lands.”
VIII-380
IDAHO.
Land selected for university purposes is not open to entry. IX—232
The Department has full control of university selections until ap-
proved by the President, and may protect a subsequent entry im-
properly allowed for land thus selected by allowing another selec-
tion in lieu of the entered tract. IX—232
ECANSAS.
Under act admitting to the Union, is entitled to 5 per centum of the
proceeds of cash sales of public lands; is not entitled to a percent-
age of the fees received in homestead and preemption filings, etc.,
which are no part of the price of the land, but are designed to
defray the expenses of the local officers. II-695
The act of 1857 allowing 5 per cent. to the States on sales of former
Indian lands only applicable to the States then in the Union. V–712
The declaration common to the acts admitting the States that “all
laws not locally inapplicable shall have the same force and effect
within that State as in the other States of the Union ” does not en-
large a specific grant. W–712
414 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
KANSAS–Continued.
The payment of the 5 per cent. to Kansas was limited to sales of
public lands, and cannot be allowed on sale of Indian trust lands.
W–712
MINNESOTA. & . • *
Selection under the act of March 3, 1879, must be for unoccupied
land. III–456
MONTAINA.
The Department controls selections under the university grant until
they are approved, and may authorize the change of a selection
which embraced a bona fide settlement claim made without notice
of the selections. VIII–55
OHIO.
The act of May 27, 1880, affects no land sold by the Ohio Agricultu-
ral College under the act of 1871. wº I-3
Legislation with respect to the Virginia military district in Ohio. I-5
WASHINGTON.
On the admission of a State to the Union it acquires absolute title to
all the tide lands within its borders, to the exclusion of any rights
under pending unadjusted scrip locations for such lands. X—365
Station Grounds. (See Right of Way.)
Statutes. (See Acts of Congress cited and construed; Revised Statutes
cited. Pages 49 and 58.)
Are operative from their date, and are constructive notice to all.
II–30
In construing revised, reference may be had to the original where
language is doubtful. WI–314
Recurrence to the history of the times at the date of the act proper
in the construction of. X-329
Courts will take judicial notice of the condition of the country and
titles to land at the time of the passage of an act. I–280
The title of an act may not override its text, but may give an insight
into its purpose and Scope. II–825; V–61
Debates in Congress considered in construing. WI-402
Action of Congress prior to passage of, considered. VI-730
Statutes are to be construed and applied according to their intent, and
that is to be determined, if possible, from the language employed.
* 1–187; II-605
Must be interpreted according to the intent and meaning and not
always according to the letter. W–543
The natural and persuasive presumption of intent may be overthrown
only by words of clear and unmistakable import. II–349
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 415
Statutes—Continued.
A thing which is within the intention of the makers of a statute is
as much within the statute as if it were within the letter. II–444
To be so construed as to give its designed effect. I-10
If possible sense and meaning should be given to every part. I-70
Where the construction of the language of a statute is doubtful,
courts will prefer that which will confirm rather than destroy any
bona-fide transaction or title. II–70
Will not be given retrospective operation unless compelled by lan-
guage so clear as to leave no doubt. IX—396
Consequences are to be considered in expounding laws where the in-
tent is doubtful, but the principle is to be applied with caution.
II–858
A special right conferred by a special act will not be taken away by
general legislation without express words requiring it. VI-502
Words or phrases repugnant to other words or phrases that clearly
express the intent and meaning of the statute should be rejected
as surplusage. V–543
Construction of, impliedly by subsequent legislation. I–2
Congress presumed to be familiar with the subject matter of its leg.
islation. I–10, 15, 278
The Department will not consider the constitutionality of I-335
If any authority exists in the executive branch of the government to
declare a statute unconstitutional it should not be exercised except
where the violation of fundamental law is so manifest as to over-
come every presumption in its favor. WI–13
Where a provision in an appropriation act, of general application, is
not expressly restricted to the appropriation, it will be regarded as
a permanent enactment. II–464
Acts in pari materia, though passed at different times, and not re.
ferring to each should be taken and construed together. V–574;
v1–8, 502; VIII–368
If the words would fairly admit of different meanings it would be
right to adopt that which is more favorable to the interests of the
public; applied (by the court) to a land grant act, where the
grantees may be supposed to have drawn the act. II–858
Granting acts should be construed most strongly against the grantee.
I–331, 365; III–243; IV-216, 429; V-381
Of a remedial act is to arise from a consideration of the old law, the
mischief, and the remedy. II–582
Of remedial character to be construed liberally. I-335, 532; V-622
Distinction between mandatory and directory. W–113; x–224
Provisions of, directory when not of the substance of the things pro-
vided for. I–226
416 DIGEST of LAND DECISIONs.
Statutes—Continued.
The law (section 2294, Revised Statutes) is permissive and bene.
ficial, and, its purpose being to faciliate bona-fide settlement, it
should be construed so as not to hamper or embarrass applicants.
II—208
A proviso in restriction of a general grant takes nothing out of the
grant but the special matter contained in the exception. II–476
Proviso to be construed strictly, as it carves special exceptions only
out of the enacting clause. I-278; V1–216
Should be so construed, if possible, to avoid conflict with previous
legislation. Ix–396; x–70
Conditions precedent must be strictly performed. 1–12, 605
Failure of conditions subsequent only taken advantage of by the
grantor. I–605
The maxim expressio unius est eacclusio alterius is applicable to section
3, act of June 14, 1878, limiting contests against timber-culture
entries to homestead and timber-culture claimants. (Overruled, 5
L. D., 591.) II–294
Decision of highest judicial authority of a State, expounding a State
statute, is as much a part of the law as if it were a statutory enact-
ment. II–14
In construing a Congressional grant it must be borne in mind that
the act by which it is made is law as well as a conveyance. I–282
Rights conferred by, not defeated by departmental regulations.
II–58, 283; V–429
There is no authority to import a word into a statute in order to change
its meaning. I-177, 278
Words should be construed in connection with the context.
I–309, 345
Will be construed as employing words and phrases in the same sense
as that given in long continued departmental practice under prior
statutes with reference to the same subject matter. VII–172
General words in a statute, following particular words, apply to per-
sons and things of the same kind as those which precede. II–271
In legal parlance the singular embraces the plural, and the plural
the singular. V–552, 622
Words in the Revised Statutes importing the singular number may
include several persons or things, and words importing the plural
mumber may include the singular. II–756
To reach the obvious purpose of, “and” is construed “ or " V–S1
“And " and “ or ’’ convertible terms, as the sense of the statute mav
require. W–523
The word “children,” in section 2168, R. S., is used in its natural
sense and is not qualified by reference to minority. II–611
“As near as practicable,” in section 2331, Revised Statutes means
as nearly as is reasonably practicable. II–764; WI–227
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 417
Statutes—Continued.
“Actual settler,” in section 2382, R. S., means actual resident.
II–628
“Sales of public lands,” within the meaning of the land laws, are
cash sales only. II–696
Under sections 2401, 2402, 2403, R. S., and act of March 3, 1879, cor-
porations can not be considered as “residing” or being “settlers”
in a township, etc. I–308
“ Person’’ includes corporation, and “entry” includes a selection,
under section 2, act of June 16, 1880 (repayments). II–681
The words “ disposed of,” in the proviso to section 1, act of March 12,
1860, mean sold and title alienated. - II–641
“Homestead laws " considered as a generic term, embracing other
settlement laws. I–71; V–591; VI-45
Coutemporaneous and uniform interpretation is entitled to weight in
the construction of the law, and in cases of doubt ought to turn the
scale. 1–2; V-124, 137, 472, 532, 575, 621; VIII–17, 93
Departmental construction of, has all the force and effect of law, and
acts done thereunder should be protected. v–169, 261, 382;
- Ix–86, 189, 284, 353
Rights acquired under an existing construction of the law will not be
impaired by a later and different interpretation. VIII–109, 399
A changed construction of the law will not impair rights acquired
under a former interpretation of the same law. VI-145, 217, 225
An erroneous construction of a statute, promulgated as a ruling, has
all the force of law until changed, and rights acquired or acts done
under it must be regarded as legal. II–7 l 1
The rule protecting vested rights on a change of ruling does not
apply to one who asserts no such right in himself, or through an-
other, acquired under the former construction of the law. X–136
Executive construction of, should not be changed except for cogent
I’éâSOIlS. VIII–255, 279
Legislative recognition of the departmental construction conclusive.
- X—513
Repeal of, by implication is not favored in law. I–419;
VIII–368; Ix–396; x–70
Are repealed by express provision, or by necessary implication, in the
latter case there must be such a repugnancy between the old and
new law that they can not stand together or be reconciled. IX—49
Repeal of, by revision, does not affect previously acquired rights.
I–419
Local and temporary not repealed by the revision. I–419
Act of August 18, 1856, relative to certain reservations in Florida,
was local in its character and therefore excepted from the general
repealing clause of the Revised Statutes (Sec. 5596). II–604
10464—27
418 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
STONE ENTRY.
(See Timber and Stone Act.)
Survey. (See Mining Claim ; Private Claim.)
I, GENERALLY.
II. DEPOSIT SYSTEM.
III. ON APPLICATION.
I. GENERALLY.
Made under the supervision of the General Land Office. Ix–14; x–99
Supervisory authority of surveyor-general in the matter of returns
made by subordinate and of work in the field. 1–325; III-270
Date of, fixed by approval. W–415
Contracts for, under the supervision of the General Land Office.
IV—452
Bonds for United States deputy; instructions of June 16, 1882. I-669
Additional bond may be required to cover the balance in excess of
the entire liability. IV–452
Deputy surveyors entitled to mileage for every mile or part of mile
I'll ll, III–185
Augmented rates allowed where the hands are mountainous or covered
with dense timber or underbrush. VIII–255, 364
Section 2411, R. S., providing per diem rates, applicable only to Cal-
ifornia and Oregon. VIII–254
The price fixed for the original survey of exterior lines should be al-
lowed for retracing and reëstablishing such lines if the contract
authorizes such work, but fixes no price therefor. W–66S
Maximum rates for, allowable if the land is heavily timbered, moun-
tainous, or exceptionally difficult to survey. X—578
Payment of increased rates not authorized except on conclusive
showing of the plat and field notes. W–668
Inspection of, in the field may be made after the work is returned.
IV-270
Return of, a pre-requisite to the acquisition of vested rights under
the settlement laws. VIII–541
Until the township plat of, has been on file for three months final
proofs should not be accepted for lands embraced therein. WI–633
Of township, how filed in local office; instructions of October 21,
1885. IV–202
Due notice of filing of plat to be given. IV—202
Suspension of township plat need not necessarily prevent submission
of the final proof where the lines of survey are not liable to change.
W–540
Withdrawal of plat as affecting pending settlements. IV—333
Correction of duplicate plats; circular of March 19, 1883. I–670
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 419
ſ. GENERALLY-Continued.
Plats are to be kept at the surveyor-general's office, and at the local
and general land office for public information. II–849
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. II–847
Copies of plats; see Fees.
Official report as to the returns presumptively correct. 1–568;
VIII-440, 467; Ix—458
Returns of, presumptively correct, but the presumption may be over.
CODO €. IX—437
Field notes of, presumptively correct. VII–562
Amendment of field notes by deputy surveyor does not necessarily
vitiate the survey. I–325
Returns of the surveyor-general not overcome by a private survey.
VII-209
Accepted as showing the true area of land covered thereby, in the
absence of proof to the contrary. VII–207
Subdivision of sections; circular provisions. V-699
Fractional sections to fall on west side of township. W–17
In closing a system of Surveys progressing from west to east upon
another system extending from a different meridian, deficiencies
may be deducted from the eastern range of sections. WI–696
One system of surveys closed upon another (California), and the last
range of townships was found to be about half the regular width;
as they could not be otherwise surveyed, they are accepted as sur-
veyed according to law. II-470
The line of ordinary high-water mark the limit of water boundary.
I–213, 243
“High-water” mark on the shore of a bay fixed by running along
the line of ordinary highwater on the main coast line, cutting
across the mouths of the streams which intersect the body of the
peninsula. II–346; V–488
Of lands bordering on navigable Waters only extends to high-water
mark. - X–369
Field book should show all Water Courses. I–325
Character of streams that should be meandered. VIII–158
Meander lines about a lake are not lines of boundary and parties hold.
ing under such a survey take to the permanent water line. III–200
Meander lines in the survey of land bordering upon a body of water,
are run not as boundaries, but for the purpose of determining the
Quantity of land subject to sale. WI–555
Metes and bounds generally conclusive. W–98
In case of variance between general description and the field notes
of boundary lines the latter control. III–521
420 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
I. GENERALLY –Continued.
Rules for the restoration of lost and obliterated corners. I–671
Proprietors bordering on streams not navigable, unless restricted by
terms of their grant, hold to the center of the stream. VI-583, 637
The boundary of a tract bordering upon a body of water is the water
line, and a patent for a tract thus bounded conveys all the land
included by the meander line. VI—555
Sudden change of a river's course does not affect title or boundary.
- I–213
Undergovernment survey a tract may be identified by quantity. V–98
Appropriation for, confined to “lands adapted to agriculture and
lines of reservations” is available for survey of a private claim,
the extent of which has been finally settled, and a survey thereof
directed. VIII–254
Subdivisional surveys in “No Man's Land” may be made from the
appropriation of October 2, 1888, if such money is not required for
the survey of townships occupied by actual settlers. VIII–613
Should be closed upon the lines of a complete grant. VI—347
Of public land not delayed on account of indefinite Indian claim. V–557
Extension of, for the adjustment of conflicting claims. V-369
Of township, if false or fraudulent, calls for resurvey, and pending
examination in the field entries of the land can not be allowed.
IX–14
Lands outside the treaty boundary of a reservation not affected by
a withdrawal of the township plat for the purpose of locating said
reservation. III–303
Where, on claimant's application, a resurvey and an amendment of
plats (California) was made and approved, which gave him a full
quarter section (160.64 acres), the matter will not be further dis.
turbed. II–469
Survey of town grant will not be disturbed, the boundaries conform-
ing to instructions. III–387
Character of, required in case of warrant location. I–6
Claims based on fraudulent Survey of former Indan reservation ad-
justed in conformity with correct description. III–288
II. DEPOSIT SYSTEM. (See Certificate of Deposit.)
Circular instructions regulating surveys under the deposit system.
I–665; III—350, 599; Iv–488
Circulars and instructions with reference to deposit surveys prior to
June 6, 1885, revoked. III–599
Deposit for, is an advance to the government for the survey of its
own land. IV—431
Of township, under deposit should not be allowed on the application
of one settler. IW–451
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 421
II. DEPOSIT SYSTEM.–Continued.
The right to a, under the deposit system, does not rest in the discre-
tion of the Commissioner, but is a matter of right in the settlers
whenever they have shown a full compliance with the law and reg-
ulations, and the township is within the range of the regular pro-
gress of public surveys. - VI–537
Application for, under the deposit system, signed by all the appli-
cants, is sufficient under the law and regulations; each settler not
being required to sign a separate application. WI–537
Railroad company can not procure, under section 2401 et seq. and act
of March 3, 1879, as settlers. I–308
The right to make deposits not enlarged by the act of March 3, 1879.
I–309
When the appropriation in the hands of the surveyor-general (Cali-
fornia) is insufficient to complete the township surveys already
contracted for, special deposits by settlers for said purpose may
be authorized by the Commissioner. II–462
When the cost of survey exceeds the amount deposited, an additional
deposit must be made, and the township plat will not be filed until
all costs are paid. III–184
Authorized under the deposit system, though portions of the land
are heavily timbered, if such lands are more valuable for agricul-
ture than for the timber. X–577
Allowed to fix claimed boundaries of private grant on deposit of
estimated cost. IV-430
Money deposited for the cost of office work on a mineral survey, and
remaing unexpended, may be applied on new. VIII–102
Claim for services should not be rejected, where the work is performed
in good faith on application sufficient under existing rulings. IV-451
That the amount claimed for services is in excess of the amount of
the estimated liability on the contract, or that the work is not per-
formed within the time specified therein, does not invalidate the
claim, though the rate of payment may be affected. IV-451
III. ON APPLICATION.
Not ordered of the former bed of a meandered lake. (Overruled, 6
L. D., 639.) See 12 L. D., 433, and 13 L. D., 588. WI–20
May be ordered of land improperly excluded as the bed of a lake,
when in fact no such body of water existed. W–369
Marsh lands excluded from original and subsequently reclaimed are
subject to, under the regulations of July 13, 1874. WI–639
The revocation of the circular of July 13, 1874, will not defeat rights
acquired thereunder. WI–639
Application for, along a stream of variable course, will only be granted
upon the most careful inquiry. IW–50
422 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
III, ON APPLICATION.—Continued.
Survey of an island will not be made where it has not the fixed and
permanent characteristics which make it a solid part of the earth’s
surface. II–456
Of an island, in a stream not navigable, denied, where prima facie
the island belongs to the owner of the land on the nearest main
shore, and such survey would be an interference with vested rights.
VI–583, 637
Of an island, not allowed where the title thereto appears to be in the
applicant as riparian owner. WI–637
Of an island, may be granted on proper application though a former
One has been rejected. IX—625
Riparian rights to be regarded in the case of the survey of an island
situated in a river. III–561
When the meander line of a survey bordering on a lake was estab-
lished at a time of extreme high water, and the recession thereof,
shortly thereafter, leaves a large body of land between said line
and the permanent shore line, such reliction should be included
within the public survey. & VII–527
Resurvey to include omitted lands ordered. III–446
Not granted for tract not claimed or classed as public land. I-310
Surveyor-General. (See Land Department.)
Swamp Lands.
I. GRANT.
II. SELECTION.
III. INDEMNITY.
IV. CHARACTER OF LAND.
V. ADJUSTMENT.
VI. UNSURVEYED LANDS.
VII. CALIFORNIA.
VIII. CERTIFICATION.
I. GRANT.
The act of September 28, 1850, was a present grant, vesting in the
State from the day of its date the title to all the Swamp and over-
flowed land then not sold, and requiring nothing but determina-
tion of boundaries to make it complete. I–312, 320;
II–472, 645, 670; IV-415; V-517; VII—256
The act of 1849 not merged in the later act. W–517
Swamp grant compared with the school grant and same construction
where the lands are embraced within a temporary reservation.
VIII-310
Whether land does or does not pass under the grant is determined
by the character of the greater part of each legal subdivision at
the date of the grant. II–644; IV-416; V–682; VIII-555
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 423
I. GRANT—Continued.
Fee of, passed to the State (Iowa) at the date of the grant, subject
to the right of Indian occupancy, and the right of possession
attached to the fee when such right of occupancy was extinguished.
X-285
Lands temporarily reserved for the benefit of the government at the
date of the grant are not excepted therefrom, but pass, as of the
date of the grant, on being relieved from the reservation (Michi.
gan). VIII–308
Issuance, inadvertently, of patent under the grant, defeats confirma-
tion of sale as provided by act of March 2, 1855. VIII–621
The original grant of, not enlarged by the act of March 3, 1857.
X—393
Excepted from the grant by reason of previous reservation to the
government are not confirmed to the State by the act of March 3,
1857. X–393, 39 p
As the erroneous certifications, based on the original surveys, had
been corrected on the evidence of the resurveys prior to enact.
ment of the confirmatory act of 1857, it follows that the original
Selections were not confirmed by said act. VII–514
Land disposed of by the government prior to approval of State selec-
tion not granted (Oregon). I–515
Included within the alternate Sections reserved to the United States
from the grant to the State (Illinois) for railroad purposes, did not
pass under the subsequent swamp grant. IV-2; X—393
Included within the alternate Sections reserved to the United States
from the grant to the State (Ohio) for canal purposes, did not pass
under the subsequent Swamp grant, and no indemnity can be
allowed therefor. X—394
II. SELECTION.
Selection of record withdraws the land from entry or location (Loui-
siana). I–513
A prima facie valid claim under the swamp grant reserves the land
covered thereby from sale or other disposition. VIII–644
A selection of, protects the interest of the State under the grant.
- IX—360
Pending the consideration of the State's claim entries may not, but
filings may be, made. II–641
Selected and reported as such prior to date of railroad grant, are
excluded therefrom whether swampy or not (Louisiana). I–509
Character of selection, properly a subject of investigation. IX—364
Selections of, subject to contest at the discretion of the Department.
§ IV–497; V–31
Selections of vacant lands, reported to the General Land Office prior
to the act of March 3, 1857, were confirmed by said act. I–508,
509; x–45, 163
424 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
II. SELECTION.—Continued.
Selections previously made and reported confirmed by the act of
March 3, 1857, so far as the same were vacant and unappropriated.
W–516
A list of selections finally rejected prior to the act of March 3, 1857,
is not confirmed by said act. VIII–387
The failure of the State (Iowa) to include a tract (platted as a lake)
in the list of selections did not release the title, which passed to
her by a grant in praesemi. II–546
The right of the State (Louisiana) to swamp lands other than those
heretofore selected, which are not otherwise appropriated, can not
be abridged by a subsequent survey. II–654
Selections (Louisiana) made after the location of a private land claim,
and approved subject to all valid objections, passed no title unless
it should be found, on final adjudication, that some of them are
not required to satisfy the confirmation. II–393
Certain selections (Louisiana), having been made within the claimed
limits of a confirmed private grant (Houmas), since survey was
extended over part of it, but before its boundaries have been
determined, should, together with the survey, be canceled. II-651
III. IN DEMINITY.
The act of March 3, 1857, does not provide for indemnity. VII–243
Indemnity for, may be adjusted upon field notes. III–572
On claim for indemnity the alleged basis may be reëxamined in the
field. W–236
Basis for indemnity must appear to be land of the character granted.
W–638
Indemnity dependent upon the date of the grant (Louisiana). V–464
Cash indemnity may be allowed for swamp lands sold between Sep-
tember 28, 1850, and March 3, 1857. III–571, 583
The State (Louisiana) is entitled to indemnity for lands sold between
March 2, 1849, and September 28, 1850. W–464
The State of Louisiana is entitled to the benefits of section 2482, R. S.,
granting indemnity for lauds disposed of after the act of 1850, and
prior to that of 1857. III–396
Indemnity locations limited to the State in which the original selec-
tions were situated. I–504
Claim of Illinois for indemnity outside of the State is res adjudicata.
I–504
Not allowed to locate indemnity scrip outside of its limits (Illinois).
IV-2
The claim of the State (Illinois) for indemnity for lands located with
scrip or warrants may be adjusted. X—125
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 425
III. INDEMNITY –Continued.
Grant of, did not take effect on lands reserved to the government in
reimbursement for lands granted by previous legislation ; and, as
such lands were not granted, indemnity therefor must be denied.
VI–348
If located by warrant or scrip, section 2482, R. S., does not provide
for cash indemnity. X–446
When the State (Missouri) has completed any part of its indemnity
proofs they are to be filed in the local office and duly certified and
forwarded to the General Land Office. II–644
When the State files a list of indemnity selections, it signifies thereby
its readiness to have its claim adjusted in accordance with existing
regulations, and should not thereafter be heard to allege that its
claim was considered before final proof was furnished. X-121
The character of all tracts on which proof is submitted for indemnity
should be determined, but separate lists should be made of tracts
sold for cash and those located with land warrants or scrip. X-121
The State (Michigan) not entitled to indemnity for lands that do not
appear from the field notes of survey to be swamp land within the
true intent Of the grant. VII–243
IV. CHARACTER OF LAND.
Determination of the Department as to the character of land con-
clusive. IV—549; V-33
The Secretary has the power, and it is his duty, to determine what
lands were of the description granted. II–668
The claim of the State to swamp land depends upon the character of
the land at the date of the grant. III–476
The State required to show the character of the land when the swamp
grant took effect. III–468
The grant of 1850 was for “all legal subdivisions, the greater part
of which is wet and unfit for cultivation; ” when the character of
the greater part of a legal subdivision has been ascertained by
duly constituted authority, the character of the whole of that sub-
division is ascertained. II–472, 644; VIII–555; Ix–386
If there is doubt as to the character of the land, the decision must be
against the grantee. V–514, 681
Grant of, includes lands so “wet” as to be rendered thereby unfit for
cultivation. IX-124, 640
Distinguished from “lands subject to periodical overflow.” W–37
A periodical overflow that subsides in time for cultivation does not
render the land subject to the grant. III–521; x–321
Land in a valley, subject to overflow annually in the spring and fall,
caused by melting snow and rains, but which afterward is fit for
plowing or cultivation or hay-growing, is not swamp land. II–651;
X—321
426 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
IV. CEHARACTER OF LAND-Continued.
Lands returned as swamp and overflowed without the words “made
unfit thereby for cultivation” pass under the grant where the sur-
vey is made subsequently thereto. V–514
Land at the date of the grant which was unfit for cultivation by
reason of its wet or swampy condition, is of the character contem-
plated by the grant. X-121
Survey made in 1880, showing certain lands in California as all swamp
when part had become dry since 1850, approved. I–312, 320
The grant of, included such lands as were from their wet and swampy
condition not cultivable without artificial drainage. X—315
Whether lands are swamp or overflowed is a question of fact, of
which the field notes on the plats are not conclusive evidence.
II–849
If at the date of the grant a tract was covered with water of apparent
permanent character it would not pass under the grant though by
subsequent recession of the Water land of swampy character came
into existence. I–321
A meandered lake, which was at date of the grant covered by shallow
water, mainly from surface drainings, was entirely dry in 1842 and
again in 1850, and was largely drained by the county in 1864, passed
to the State (Iowa) by the grant. II—544
Land covered by navigable waters of the State is not. IV—416
V. ADJUSTMENT. º
The grant of, may not be enlarged by any plan of adjustment. VII–514
Cases should be disposed of in accordance with the general rules of
practice (Oregon). IV-225
The Commissioner of the General Land Office to determine whether
the evidence as to the character of the land is satisfactory, and if
not so found, may order reëxamination in the field. W–236
Land Office to review testimony though no appeal is taken from the
finding of the local office (Oregon). IV-226
Commissioner should review testimony as to character of the land.
III–474, 608
When proof has been submitted by the State in accordance with the
regulations then in force the General Land Office should render
judgment thereon, if found sufficient, and if not, direct further in-
Vestigation. X-121
The ascertainment of the tracts granted is a question of fact to be
settled by the Secretary of the Interior. VII–514
In adjudicating claims for, the State alone is recognized as the ben-
eficiary, and not counties. X–121
The manner of collecting evidence in the adjustment of the swamp
grant not material. III-440
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 427
V. ADJUSTMENT—Continued.
Plan of adjustment may be varied by the Secretary of the Interior.
V–31, 236, 519
An agreed plan of selection of swamp lands may be modified by the
State with the consent of the United States. III-334
The decision of a commission mutually agreed upon, that a certain
tract is swamp land, will not prevent the Department from review-
ing such decision or considering other evidence. VIII–555; IX—385
The decision of a commission, appointed by the State and General
Land Office, as to the character of a tract does not preclude the
Department from resorting to other evidence. X–39
Though the State elected to furnish evidence, the Department may
consult its records where the evidence is conflicting. III–476
To establish the claim of the State it must show that the greater
part of the subdivision claimed is of the character granted.
- VIII–555; Ix–386
Government may institute inquiry as to the character of the land
claimed. IV—497
State may submit proof in the absence of agreement to accept the
field notes as the basis of adjustment. V–518
Acceptance of the field notes as the basis of adjustment makes them
prima facie evidence as to character of land. IV—481
Under adjustment by field notes the character of the land must be
clearly apparent. v–514, 638
The field notes of survey are presumptively correct, and must be
taken as true until disproved by a clear preponderance of the evi-
dence. VII–562
The burden of proof is with the State if the returns do not prima
facie show the swampy character of the land. VIII–555; ix–386
The correctness of an official report as to what is shown by the field
notes will be presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
IX—458
Field notes of survey not conclusive except when showing the char-
acter of each smallest legal subdivision. - W–681
Election of the State of Ohio to rely on field notes of survey recog-
nized. III–390
In adjusting the grant on field notes of survey, where the intersec-
tions of the lines of swamp lands with those of the public survey
alone are given, such intersections may be connected by straight
lines to determine the character of the legal subdivisions.
VII–424; IX—385
In adjustment under field notes of survey, made before the grant,
the State is not entitled to lands returned as swamp and overflowed
without all the descriptive words of the grant or words clearly of
like import. W–514; IX—458
428 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
V. ADJUSTMENT—Continued.
Where the field notes of survey are made after the passage of the
act of 1849, and with reference thereto, they will be held to entitle
the State, prima facie, to lands returned as swamp and overflowed,
without the additional words, “made unfit thereby for cultivation.”
V–514
Field notes of survey made after the grant presumed to show whether
the land is subject thereto. No such presumption attends survey
made before the grant (Louisiana). V–514, 638
The falsity of the field notes of survey may be shown by a party in
interest without requiring him to also show that the survey was
fraudulent. VII–562
That the returns do not show the land to be of the character granted
is not conclusive against the State, even though the field notes of
survey have been adopted as the basis of adjustment. X–39
Election of the State (Louisiana) to rely on the field notes accepted as
basis of adjustment. W–598
The State having elected to take by the field notes of survey is bound
by them, as is also the government (Louisiana). IV—525
To pass by field notes, the description therein must be specific and
show the lands to be of the character granted. IV-524; V-514, 638
Glant of, should be adjusted on field notes of survey in General Land
Office (Arkansas). IV—295
Until the governor is invested with authority to consent to the ad-
justment of the grant in accordance with principles heretofore
adopted by the Department, no further action can be taken on the
claim of the State (Arkansas). W–636
State bound by its election to adjust the grant on the field notes un-
less the survey is shown to be fraudulent. IV–480
Though the field notes may show the land to be of the character
granted, it will not pass to the State if the falsity of the returns is
shown. Iv–479; V–519; VIII–179
The adoption of the field notes of survey as the basis of adjustment
will not estop the government from making inquiry as to the
character of a tract, although it may appear from the field notes
to be of the character granted (Minnesota). VII–313, 562
The adoption of the field notes of survey as the basis of adjustment
did not amount to a contract with the State (Michigan and Minne-
SOta). VII–514, 562
The “notes of surveys on file” must be interpreted as meaning the
notes finally approved (Michigan). VII–514
Passed to the State as such on field notes of survey, though not se-
lected (Michigan.) I–514
State to furnish evidence where the field notes are not conclusive
(Michigan.) IV—415
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 429
V. ADJUSTMENT—Continued.
An adverse finding and report by a special agent is not conclusive
against the State in the absence of final testimony submitted by
the State. X–22
Claim should not be rejected on the report of a special agent, but a
further investigation may be ordered thereon. X–121
In adjusting the grant of, sworn testimony of competent witnesses
should not be ignored on a superficial examination in the field by
a special agent. IX-124, 640
Right of the State to be heard before the Department on the final
adjudication of a claim recognized, though appeal was not taken
from the adverse decision of the local office. VIII–64
Specific charge that land was fraudulently returned as, will be inves-
tigated even after certification. VI—37
For fraud shown the returns may be attacked and vacated.
Iv–479; V-519
Circular of December 13, 1886, with respect to entries and filings on
lands claimed by the State. VI-279
In conflict with settlement claim should not be disposed without
notice to the settler. W–99
Priority of prečmption claim recognized where the land is not returned
as swamp by the public survey. I–515
Entry of, by prečmption not evidence in itself of fraud. IV—549
The exception of settlement rights in the act of 1857 is not applica-
Sle to the State of Florida. VIII–65
Claim of State to certain lands held by prečmptors and homesteaders
waived by act of legislature (Oregon.) IV—549
Claim for lands acquired from the Mille Lac Indians by the treaty of
1864 (Minn.) can not be adjusted until the “further legislation ”
required by the act of July 4, 1884, has been enacted. V–102
The Department has no jurisdiction to inquire into an allegation that
a certain tract is an accretion to other land that passed under the
swamp grant. WII–255
Claim for, not considered where the land has been certified to the
State under railroad grant (La.). I–509
If patent for, has erroneously issued to individual grantees the rem-
edy of the State is in the courts. X—393
VI. UNSURVEYED LANDS.
Selections of unsurveyed lands by estimated areas may be patented
if they can be designated by an accurate description (Florida).
VIII–65
Selections of unsurveyed lands made in accordance with existing
regulations and reported prior to the act of March 3, 1857, held to
be confirmed by said act. VIII–65
430 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
VI. UNSURVEYEI) LANDS—Continued.
Selections, by estimated areas, of unsurveyed lands permissible, in
the absence of conflict with other claims, if the entire body of land
is of the character granted. VII–369
Selections of, must be governed by the facts in each case. VIII–369
VII. CALIFORNIA.
The return of the surveyor-general under the first clause of section
2488 conclusive, except in case of fraud or mistake (Cal.). W–99
Adjudication under the fifth clause of section 2488, R. S., final as
against a mere allegation that the lands were not of the character
granted. W–37
Section 2448, R. S., relates to lands in California that were swamp
at the date of the granting act. I–312
Under section 2488, R. S., the surveyor-general should describe the
land that is swamp and overflowed according to the best evidence
he can obtain. I–324
Testimony as to the character of land, submitted by the State under
section 2488, R. S., must be taken before the surveyor-general.
VI–684
Where the State (California) survey is not according to the rectangu-
lar system, amendment of the plats showing State swamp segrega-
tion is disapproved. . II–470
The real object of the desired amendment is to secure the designation
of lot 1 as swamp land; in this case the plat must be so amended,
as the greater part of the forty was returned as swamp. II-471, 645
Segregation survey of, under State act of 1863, prior to application,
is invalid (Cal.) IV—371
Act of July 23, 1866, section 1, has no reference to swamp claims,
after patent thereunder to a purchaser from the State of California;
it may not be again claimed under the swamp grant. II–643; IV-142
Only the fourth section of the act of July 23, 1866, refers to swamp
lands, and under the first clause of said section the State has no
right unless the land appears upon the approved township plat as
SWamp. III–521
Segregation survey under third clause of section 4, act of July 23,
1866, approved by the surveyor-general, is not conclusive. III–492
Lands segregated by the State (California) as swamp, before the act
of July 23, 1866, by surveys in conformity with the system adopted
by the government, were confirmed to the State by said act. VIII–78
VIII. CERTIFICATION.
The approval and certification of a list affirmatively determines the
character of the lands embraced therein. v–33, 300
Certification of, not disturbed, except on showing of fraud or mistake,
or alleged priority of right. V–31, 300; VI-37
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 431
VIII. CERTIFICATION.—Continued.
State (Oregon) to show cause why certification procured through
fraud should not be set aside. W–374
Investigation as to manner of procuring certification authorized
(Oregon). W–300, 374
In the adjustment of the grant the government is not bound by a
certification procured through a false and fraudulent report of its
agent, and the Secretary of the Interior may cancel a certification
thus procured. VII-572
The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to correct a certification
based upon an erroneous survey. WII–514
Where swamp lands (32,102 acres) were improperly certified to the
State (Minnesota) under a grant for a railroad (Lake Superior and
Mississippi), and conveyed by the State to the company, upon a re-
conveyance to the State by the company or its successors patents
may issue to the State under the swamp grant. II–642
Although the lands may have been certified (1852) to the State
(Louisiana) under a survey originally erroneous (as to character),
as shown by a subsequent survey (1879), the certification was
equivalent to patent, and the United States has no further owner-
ship in or control over them until set aside by due course of law.
II–652
Tenant. (See Residence ; Settlement.)
Tide Lands. (See Scrip; States and Territories.)
Timber and Stone Act. (See Application, sub-title No. VIII.)
I. GENERALLY.
II. CHARACTER OF LAND.
III. PUBLICATION.
IV. ADVERSE CLAIM.
I. GENERALLY.
Circular of May 21, 1887. VI—114
Circular of September 5, 1889, revoking the ninety-day requirement.
IX—384
Until an application is finally allowed the applicant has no right to
or control over the land. IX—335
Right to receive title complete on proof and payment made in good
faith. W–38
Tender held equivalent to payment. W–38
Entry should be based upon personal inspection of the land. VII–10
An entry may embrace non-contiguous tracts. II–332
Neither a married woman nor a minor may make entry. II–332
Lands may be purchased by married woman who by laws of the State
is recognized as a Sole trader. WI-32
432 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
I. GENERALLY-Continued.
Entry may be made by a married woman, acting in her own interests,
if she possesses the requisite qualifications of citizenship. X–47
The restrictions imposed by the circular of May 21, 1887, are intended
to prevent an entry by a married woman for the benefit of her hus-
band, but not to limit the right of entry in any State or Territory
in which the act is applicable, and where title would not vest in
the husband by virtue of marital rights. X–47
Entry made by an employé in the office of the surveyor-general of
the district in which the land is situated is illegal. X-97
The right of entry being acquired may be completed by the heirs of
the entryman. - W–38
Does not exclude land from the settlement laws if the good faith of
the plaimant is clearly shown. VI-691;
VII–555; VIII–641; Ix–139, 573
Provides only for the sale of surveyed lands; hence an entry should
not be permitted for lands within a known false or fraudulent sur-
vey. IX–12
Does not take effect upon lands selected for educational purposes.
WI–696
Department may, on proper grounds, cancel an entry any time
prior to patent, and this authority is not abridged by the claim of
a transferee. IX—573
Sale after entry does not show bad faith sufficient to justify cancel.
lation. VI–33
Entries made for the benefit of others are in evasion of the law and
fraudulent. III–84
A relinquishment of a claim prior to final proof confers no rights on
the person obtaining and filing it. II–333
II. CHARACTER OF LAND.
Burden of proof as to the character of the land is upon the claimant.
IV–164, 238
The act was intended to allow timber entry of tracts in broken, rug-
ged, or mountainous districts, with soil unfit for ordinary agricul-
tural purposes when cleared of timber. II–632
Where the soil is a black loam and susceptible of ordinary cultiva-
tion, except in minor portions where it is rocky or steep, it is not
subject to entry. II–633
The act does not contemplate that the lands must be wholly unfit for
cultivation, after removal of the timber, but that they must be
unfit for ordinary cultivation and valuable chiefly for timber; cases
Suggested. II–336
To except land from entry under said act it must appear that crops
can be raised profitably thereon. VIII–159
Purchase should not be allowed unless it appears that the land would
be unfit for ordinary cultivation if it was cleared of timber. VII–140
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 433
II. CHARACTER OF LAND–Continued.
A tract of land containing patches of arable soil, which, however,
aggregate a less quantity than those parts unfit for cultivation, is
proper subject to entry under said act. WI–630
The timber applicant must show that the land was uninhabited,
unoccupied, and unimproved by others, and that it is unfit for cul-
tivation and chiefly valuable for timber. II–632
Best evidence as to the character of the land from those engaged in
tilling the soil in the vicinity. IV—238
Mesquite not regarded as timber. WI–662
Mineral lands excluded from sale. I–600
If the character of the land is called in question a hearing should be
ordered. VIII–412
III. PUBLICATION.
Final proof and payment not to be made until after the period of pub-
lication has expired. III–85; Iv-282
Publication of intention to purchase prevents the land from being
properly entered by another pending consideration of the applica-
tion. IX—335
The departmental regulation requiring the submission of proof within
ninety days from date of published notice, may be waived where
pressure of business in the local office requires such action.
IX—335, 384
Entry may be referred to board of equitable adjudication where proof
was not made within ninety days from date of published notice,
due compliance with law in other respects being shown. VII–496
Entry may be referred to the board of equitable adjudication, where
the proof as to the character of the land was sworn to prior to the
expiration of the period of publication. WI–719
IV. ADVERSE CLAIM.
Claims initiated subsequent to the application are subject thereto.
II–333; IV-177, 238, 282; VIII–412; Ix–335
The “adverse claim,” or the “valid claim,” in section 3 of the act, is
one initiated prior to the application; it must be filed during the
publication. II–334: IV—282
Affidavit based upon prior claim of record is an “objection ” under
section 3 of the act. IV—178
Adverse claims to be settled by hearing. Iv–177, 282
A party not in interest may appear at any time, alleging illegality in
respect of the qualifications or proceedings of the applicant, the
bona fides of his application, or the character of the land; the only
issue is the legality of the application, and the burden of proof is
on the timber applicant. II–336
The proviso to section 3 of the act contemplates a protest, after entry,
against the issue of patent, founded on an alleged priority of right.
II–336
10464—28
434 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
IV. ADVERSE CLAIM –Continued.
The allegation of a person (claiming a settlement right) that the land
is valuable chiefly for agriculture does not properly constitute a
“contest,” in which the adverse claims of the parties are to be ad-
judicated; it is a protest putting that one fact in issue only. II–633
Protest calls in question character of land or good faith of applicant.
IV—282
Tight of protest not confined to adverse claimant. IV-238,282
A claim initiated subsequently to the application confers no rights,
and may not delay entry on the required proofs; if the United
States do not pass title, the subsequent claimant has the next best
right to the land. II–334
Inhabited, improved, and occupied land not subject to purchase.
IV-380
The existence of a valid settlement or improvement is fatal to the
claim, irrespective of the question of character of the land. II–336
Bona fide occupation and improvement of land bars a subsequent ap-
plication under the timber and stone act. II–336
Prior occupancy of an alien defeats the purchase of another. IV-380
Right under, not allowed to defeat or impair prior valid prečmption
claim. V–366
Filing without settlement no bar to purchase. IV—7()
An entry is barred by a prior homestead settlement, irrespective of
the character of the land. II–17.2
Entry not allowed if the land contains mining improvements made
and maintained by another in good faith. X–271
Alleged settlement rights on timber lands should be closely scruti-
nized. VI-691; VII-555; VIII–641; IX-139, 573
Applicant under, may attack subsisting prečmption claim. W–366
Conflicting prečmptor should be cited by applicant. III–435
A prior invalid claim will not defeat an application to purchase under
this act. III–210
Invalid prečmption claim no bar to purchase, but the burden of proof
is upon the applicant to show the invalidity of the prečmption
claim. III–435
Application hereunder for land covered by a prečmption claim only
raises the question of the preemptor's good faith and compliance
with the law. III–258
A prima facie valid preemption filing, or other claim of record, bars
a timber application (unaccompanied by an impeachment of it.)
II–633
Right of purchase not defeated by the intervention of an adverse
claim, where through error of the local office the applicant failed
to appear on the day fixed for proof and payment. X-415
On application to purchase lands covered by prior prečmption claim,
the burden of proof is upon the applicant, to show the invalidity
of said claim. WI–691
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 435
IV. ADVERSE CLAIM—Continued.
In a hearing to determine the priority of right between an applicant
and an alleged prior settler, the character of the land may be also
placed in issue. VIII–161
In contests between settlers and applicants under this act, the char-
acter of the land may be taken into consideration in determining
the good faith of the settler. VII–555
Hearing ordered, after proof was submitted, to determine the right
of an adverse claimant who alleged want of notice. IV—177
Timber Culture. (See Application; Contest : Entry; Final Proof.)
I. GENERALLY. .
II. BREAKING.
III. PLANTING.
IV. CULTIVATION.
I. GENERALLY.
Circular of February 1, 1882, with blank forms. I–638
Circular of June 27, 1887 (approved July 12, 1887). WI–280
The act of 1878 extended rights secured under the former acts. V–234
Entryman under act of 1874 became entitled to benefits of act of 1878
(as to area to be cultivated) at date of its passage. II–280
Requirements of the law are explicit and may not be waived or mod-
ified by the General Land Office. I–120
Requirements of the law like that of the prečmption law. I–142
Entry made in arid country, at the claimant’s risk. I–123
That the area cultivated in trees is in excess of ten acres is not ma-
terial. IV—90
Work may be done at any time within the required period. I–137
Work may be done by entryman, his agent, or his vendor. I–137;
III–502; IV-493
Work may be done by an agent, but the entryman will be responsi.
ble therefor. I–120
Non-compliance with law not excused because the default resulted
from the negligence of the entryman’s agent. IV–493; X—341
Agent of entryman may not take advantage of his own wrongful act
to contest the entry. IV—494
Good falth of claimant may be taken into consideration in determin-
ing whether there has been due compliance with law. I–142,
148; IV—494; VII–331; Ix—304, 567, 646
Whilst the requirements of the law must be carried out fully, never-
theless the object of the law, “to encourage the growth of timber,”
should always be kept in view in determining the question of com-
pliance with them. II–306
Must show good reason in case of failure to fully comply with the
law. W-363
436 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
I. GENERALLY-Continued.
Substantial compliance with the law in good faith held satisfactory.
IV—205
Full area must be broken and cultivated to trees prior to final proof.
VII–365
Failure to secure the requisite growth of thrifty trees warrants can.
cellation, if such condition is the result of negligence and bad faith
in the matter of cultivation. VIII–601
Slight deficiency in acreage will not justify cancellation. VI-755;
VII–365; Ix–567
Entry not canceled, though but eight and one-half acres were in cul-
tivation, the good faith of the claimant being apparent. III–365
An entry should not be canceled, where, through mistake, a small
portion of the area in cultivation is outside of the claim. IX-304
Failure to secure required growth not sufficient ground in itself to
warrant eancellation of entry on contest, such failure not being due
to neglect of the entryman. v1–491, 773
Entryman not held responsible for the results of incendiarism or de-
struction by the floods. II–307; Iv–164
The loss of trees by fire does not warrant the cancellation of the
entry where no ordinary precaution could have prevented such
loss. VII–11
Absence of a “fire break” not in itself evidence of bad faith. VII–11
IFailure of seeds to grow not a cause of forfeiture in the absence of
bad faith. III–584; VII–333
Non-compliance with law not excused on the plea that the land is too
wet for the cultivation of trees, if the character of the land was
known at entry, and no effort was made thereafter to improve its
condition. VIII–511
Plea of sickness will not excuse non-compliance with law, if the claim-
ant was in default at the time he was disabled for further compli-
ance with law. X—352
Drought may be accepted as an excuse for non-compliance with the
law. IV—346; VII–331
Compliance with law must be shown pending application for amend-
ment. V–349
Entryman should comply with the law during the pendency of con-
test. III–486; V-104
The heirs of a deceased entryman must show compliance with the
law. V–398
No statutory authority for a requirement that the trees should attain
a particular height or size to warrant the issuance of patent. WI-624;
- v111–191; Ix–285
That the trees have not reached a particular height or size will not
warrant cancellation, if the entryman has been diligent in cultiva-
tion. VIII–535
IDIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 437
I. GENERALLY –Continued.
Trees of the poplar family regarded as timber trees. III–145
As late as 1879 the cottonwood was not classed among timber trees.
I–166
The osage orange regarded as a timber tree when cultivated as such
within the latitude where it attains its natural growth. WI-119;
Ix–3; x–409
Facts in relation to the growth and size of box elder, ash, and catalpa
treeS. II–310
II. BREAKING.
The entryman is entitled to a full year, exclusive of the day of entry,
in which to break the first five acres. II–249
At the end of second year there must be ten acres broken. IV—303
The “breaking ” required the first year is sufficient if the land is
thereby rendered fit for cultivation “to crop or otherwise” the sec-
ond year. WI–669
The purpose of the law is attained by a thorough overturning of the
entire area, whether by plowing or otherwise (grubbing), so as to
fit it for cultivation. II–264
When one enters land with knowledge of its unfitness for tree culture,
he will be held to a strict compliance with the requirements of law
(breaking). - II–265
Breaking and planting may be done in advance of the required time.
1–137; IV—175, 303
Breaking done on land by a former occupant inures to the benefit of
the entryman, if properly utilized.
I–137; III–482; IV—175, 543; x–322
Credit allowed for breaking done by former entryman if such work
has been utilized by the claimant. III–483: Iv–542; V1–829
Where through mistake but eight and three-quarters acres, were
broken in the first two years the entry was not canceled.
I–126; III–372
Failure to break not excused by reason of drought. I–141
Breaking in Colorado possible without irrigation. - I–123
Failure to break and cultivate, where caused by the wrong of con-
testant, excused. III–486
III. PLANTING.
Planting of first five acres must be done third year. I-135
Planting should be done when the ground is in proper condition.
IV–174; V–364
The entryman is justified in adopting a method of planting found to
result successfully in that vicinity. VII–468
Sowing tree seeds broadcast not in compliance with law. W-8
Sowing tree seeds broadcast with grain is not a proper “planting ”
WI–716
438 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
III. PLANTING --Continued.
A slight failure in planting the requisite area may be excused where
the good faith of the entryman is manifest. VII-440
Failure to properly distribute the trees not cause for cancellation.
IV—162
Unfavorable weather excuses the failure of the planting, where dili.
gence in remedying it was exercised. II–314
Replanting must follow when trees are destroyed. I–128
Failure to replant two acres destroyed by fire, excused, it appearing
that the entryman had the trees for such replanting under culti-
vation. IV—163
Extreme drought furnishes a sufficient excuse for a short delay in
replanting where good faith is apparent. VII–331
Planting of previous entry man available. Iv–291, 543
The entryman is responsible for the negligence of his agent in plant-
ing. VII-63
IV. CULTIVATION.
Cultivation is such care and attention as will best promote the healthy
growth of trees. I–117, 130
Acts of cultivation should show good faith. III–398; IV—174; V–40, 331
Character of soil and Season, age and kind of trees, to be considered
in passing upon question of cultivation. X–10
Method of cultivation varies with the locality. W–9
No fixed rule can be laid down as to what constitutes satisfactory
cultivation. X–10
Such method of cultivation should be adopted as will secure the best
results. IV—162
The law does not necessarily require that the trees planted one year
shall be, in all cases, cultivated the following year. IX—l 48
That the land is in a weedy condition Will not justify a finding of
bad faith if the requisite number of trees are in a healthy growing
condition. IX—567
Inattention to trees after planting evidence of bad faith. IV–174
Replowing of five acres second year treated as cultivation. I-135
Mulching may be regarded as cultivation. I–130
Hoeing around young trees and permitting a growth of grass and
weeds between them, which is necessary to insure their protection
in a cold climate, satisfies the law. II–305
Want of cultivation not presumed from the Small number of trees
growing at the end of three years. I–127
Trees should be protected from inroads of cattle and horses. X-341
Though subsequent transplanting may be required to secure the
requisite growth, such fact does not warrant a finding of bad faith
or improper planting. X–10
Failure to cultivate may not be taken advantage of by one employed
to perform such act. IV—205
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 439
IV. CULTIVATION.—Continued.
The time occupied in the preparation of the soil and planting the
trees may be computed as forming a part of the statutory period
of cultivation. II–309; III–260
The eight years of cultivation must be computed from the time when
the required acreage of trees, seeds, or cuttings are planted.
v1–624; VIII–191; Ix–86, 284
Under entries made prior to the regulations of June 27, 1887, the
time occupied in the preparation of the soil and planting the trees
may be computed as a part of the statutory period of cultivation.
Ix–86, 284, 624; x-409
The instructions of July 16, 1889, with respect to the rule to be ob-
served in computing the period of cultivation, did not change de-
cisions that had become final or authorize the General Land Office
to modify said decisions. X–93
Timber Cutting. (See Right of Way ; Timber Trespass.)
Instructions of June 30, 1882. - I-697
Protection of tim! er from fire, circular of September 19, 1882. I-696
Circular of October 12, 1882, relative to cutting mesquite. I-695
Circular of December 15, 1885, as to the protection of timber. Iv–289
Circular of August 5, 1886. V-129
Object of the act of June 3, 1878, to enable the inhabitants of the States
and Territories to appropriate timber from land not subject to the
settlement laws. - I–600
Is not permitted by the act of 1878 for purposes of transportation
beyond the State or Territory. I–597
Mineral districts outside of the States named are within the terms
of the act of 1878. I–600, 616
Authorized by act of 1878 for any use within the State (or Territory)
for the comfort or convenience of its people. 1–597, 602,618
The act of 1878 permits sale of timber within the State for domestic
uses. I–597
Section 4, act of June 3, 1878, accords to the agriculturist and miner
permission to use timber from non-mineral land. I-600, 602,616,618
The act of 1878 authorizes, on mineral lands of the United States for
(iomestic uses. - 1–597
The act of 1878 provides for the use of timber in mining operations.
I–597, 614
Cut prior to act of June 3, 1878, and such as by said act would be
lawful after said date; proceedings will not be instituted. II–823
Miners and others inhabiting mining districts may cut, or employ
others to cut, timber from mineral lands for domestic use. II–823
Where coal suitable for fuel exists in the neighborhood, timber for
fuel should not be cut by a mining company. t II-S27
Coal lands are not mineral lands within the meaning of the act of
June 3, 1878. II–827
44() DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
Timber Cutting—Continued.
Departmental decision of May 25, 1882, 1 L. D., 597, relates only to
public mineral lands. I–590
Allowed for government use under a contract to supply a military
post. I–613
Restricted to trees not less than 8 inches in diameter, I–602
Removal of timber from land covered by homestead entry or prečmp.
tion filing not permitted except for purposes of improvement or
other domestic use. 1–596, 599, 600, 604,606
Until homestead entry is finally perfected the land belongs to the
government; the settler may use the timber on the land for fen-
cing or other needful purposes; a prior occupant has no right to
rails or to other timber cut upon it. II–815
Where the homestead settler cut on his land and sold certain posts
and railroad ties under the supposition that he had a legal right to
do so, and where it appears that he has taken and is holding his
claim in good faith, the infraction of the rule against such timber
cutting will be overlooked. II–81.5
A settler on unsurveyed land intending to make it a home and to take
it under the settlement laws when surveyed, is justified in doing
whatever clearing is necessary to put in a crop, and may cut and
sell the timber to aid him in so doing, or may sell timber for the
support of his family while clearing the land and putting in a crop.
II–817
Hereafter (December 7, 1883) the special agents will make no report
of timber cutting by homesteaders or prečmptors on their claims
unless they find the entry to be fraudulent (cases suggested), or
unless it be conclusively established that the timber was not cut
for clearing the land or for of her legitimate purposes. II-S 19
Bona fide settler may dispose of the down and fallen timber on his
claim, for improvements and support, while perfecting title. III–63
Down timber on the public lands may not be appropriated to private
UlS(2. III–124
Actual settler on unsurveyed land may use down timber in the Sup-
port of his improvements. III–137
Not permitted within limits of unconfirmed private claim. I–621
Rights within an unconfirmed private claim the same as recognized
in a homesteader. I–622
Locator of scrip, until title has passed, may not remove timber, except
for improvement. I–620
Use of waste timber accorded to entryman. I–603
Indian allottee no authority to use timber except for improvement,
etC. I–608
Indians may not lawfully cut timber from selections not approved by
the Department, nor from approved selections except for the pur-
pose of improving the land. II–821
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 441
Timber Cutting—Continued.
For railroad construction; circular of March 3, 1883. I-699
In construction of railroad, timber may be taken from any of the
public lands in the vicinity. I-610
Agent of railroad company may hire men to cut ties, but may not
sell to other parties. I-610
Railroad companies to be supplied under contract. I–612
Timber may not be taken from private claim for construction pur-
poses, under act of March 3, 1875. - I–622
Authorized in the construction of telegraph line by duly organized
and qualified company. I–625
Rejected lumber, if from mineral land, may be sold to miners and
Settlers. I–612
Authorized in construction of railroad, ceases on completion of the
road. I–609
Timber taken under act of March 3, 1875, for purposes of construc-
tion only. WI–449
Timber taken under the act of March 3, 1875, must be used in con-
struction of road adjacent to the lands from which the timber is
taken. WI–449
Use of timber for construction purposes limited to timber taken from
adjacent lands. IV—23, 65
Right of railroad company to use timber in the construction of depots,
etC. IV—65
Agents of railroad companies to show authority before cutting timber.
IV–24
Surplus or refuse timber cut (from mineral lands of the United States
by a timber agent) for railroad construction may not be exported
from the State or Territory. II–811
An agent cutting timber for railroad purposes is not entitled to the
surplus or refuse timber cut from public lands, mineral or other-
wise, without paying stumpage value for it. II–814
Timber Trespass. (See Right of Way ; Timber Cutting.)
Q I. GENERALLY.
II. RAILROAD LIMITS.
TX-rr re r A tº Tºw Tº
H}}. PURCHASER.
IV. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.
W. COMPROMISE.
VI. CONDONATION.
I. GENERALLY.
By millmen, entrymen, etc., instructions of October 24, 1881. I-701
Measure of damages for; circular of March 1, 1883. I-695
Circular of August 5, 1886. V-129
On the public domain, circular of May 7, 1886. IV —521
The government may protect its property from trespass the same as
a private person. IV—392
442 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
I. GENERALLY –Continued.
General powers of the Department even with respect to the public
land extends to the protection of the timber growing thereon. V–240
Unsurveyed lands will be protected from trespass IV—65
A homestead entry does not authorize the entryman to dispose of
the timber for any purpose inconsistent with the character of the
entry. V—39()
Any one who unlawfully cuts timber on the public lands, hires others
to do so, or in any way encourages or promotes the same, is liable
therefor. I–619
Committed in boxing trees for turpentine. I–607; V-389
Damages from “boxing ” for turpentine to include injuries present
and prospective. IV-1
Committed upon public lands formed by accretion subjects the offender
to liability. I–596
Will not be excused when by reasonable diligence the ownership of
the land might have been learned. 111–346
Neither railroad companies nor settlers may take timber from school
lands. I-609
On school lands in the Territories prosecuted. IV—392
Unlawful for millmen to cut timber from public non-mineral land for
exportation. I–602
Fort Cameron, Utah, is abandoned, but not yet restored to the public
domain; timber cutting on such reservations is within the jurisdic-
tion of the Land Department; timber cut must be released to the
United States. II–822
A homesteader who by mistake resided and cut timber without his
lines, and over more land than an entry could have covered, may
amend his entry so as to include the land he resided on, and so as
to subject the government to the least loss; neither he nor those
who bought the timber from him should be prosecuted. II–S{}S
So long as the lands are occupied in good faith under the prečmption
law, the duty of protecting the timber does not rest on the govern-
ment; otherwise, where the land has been fraudulently obtained
as a prečmption or homestead. 11–810'
Upon land within the entry of another does not concern the govern-
ment. III– 121
On land covered by prečmption entry not inquired into. IV—467
II. RAILROAD LIMITS.
The company (Northern Pacific) may not sell the timber on land
within its indemnity limits which has not been selected; a selec-
tion to become effective on title needs the approval of the Depart-
ment. 11–819, 820
It is the duty of the government to protect the timber upon all the
lands within the unsurveyed granted limits of the railroad (North-
ern Pacific). II–828
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 443
II. RAILROAD LIMITS-Continued.
Right of recovery as against a railroad company for timber taken
from odd sections within indemnity limits not defeated by a sub-
sequent selection of the lands. VIII–359
Railroad company not liable for, on selected lands the title to which
appears to be in said company. W–511
Not permitted upon unearned odd-numbered sections within a rail-
road grant. IW–58
Cutting timber, for the purpose of speculation, from land within the
forfeited limits of the M. H. & O. R. R. Co., and in controversy be:
tween cash purchasers and actual settlers, should not be permitted
pending determination of the legal status of the land. IX—542
III. PURCH ASER.
The owner of stolen property may reclaim it or demand full value
from the purchaser, notwithstanding the fact that the purchaser
had bought it in good faith and had paid full value for it. II–837
A cut the timber and converted it into lumber, which he sold to B;
B sold it to C, who was ignorant of the trespass; held, that B and
C may be held jointly responsible for the value as lumber. II–835
Purchasers of public timber must pay its stumpage value in case of
unintentional trespass, but the full value where the trespass was
willful. II–839
Where certain mill companies procured ignorant and irresponsible
men to do the cutting, suits should be brought against the millmen.
II–84()
A purchaser who induced the trespass must pay the purchase price
of the logs. II—S41
IV. LEGAL PROCEED INGS.
Must not be instituted against alleged timber depredators unless
directed by the Attorney-General, or until the special timber agent
has been so instructed by the Land Department; but in cases of
emergency, where immediate action is necessary to protect the
government, he may apply to the United States attorney to insti-
tute proceedings. II–841
The United States may sue for the value of timber unlawfully cut.
I–607
Cut before title to the tract passed from the government is not part
of the realty, and does not pass with it; its value may afterwards
be sued for by the government. II–776.
Action for, may be maintained subsequently to the sale of the land to
other parties. I–620
Action for, not advised as against a railroad company in whom title
appears to vest through indemnity selection. WI–190.
The United States will not prosecute for, committed on railroad lands.
I–611
444 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
IV. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS–Continued.
Suits, civil and criminal, advised for, on land withdrawn under rail-
Way grant. IV—487
Civil and criminal proceedings advised where timber was taken by a
railroad company prior to application for right of way privileges,
and not for the purposes contemplated by law. VIII-374
Where the trespass is on an additional homestead claim, the settler,
who fully complied with the law in his original entry, has exclu-
sive right to the timber and must himself bring action in the local
COurtS. II–810
For trespass committed during the absence of the entryman, civil
and criminal proceedings recommended. III–2
A trespasser on entered land is subject to both the suit of the entry-
man and the government. III–142
Suit advised in case of entries made through conspiracy for the pur-
pose of securing the timber unlawfully. IV—469
The locator of a mining claim can prosecute for, in his own right.
I–615
“Boxing ” pine trees for the purpose of securing turpentine is an
indictable offense. W-389
V. COMPROMISE.
A trespass that is not willful may be settled by payment of reasona-
ble amount. III–348
The Department is authorized to receive the amount found due on
account of depredation. W–240
The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to make compromise for,
but no authority to release from liability without compensation.
WI–725
Agent not authorized to settle for, or receive money in settlement.
1–613, 625
Duty of special agents in determining amounts due for. W–240
The settlement of the claim against Coe and Carter did not include
trespass committed by their subcontractors. VI—7.25
Persons settling for, should pay keeper's charges, pro rata, prior to
release of the timber. III–4
Where the trespasser was misled as to the character of the land and
his rights, the offer of settlement was accepted. III–133
Where land was in a mining region, though not mineral, and the
timber was used in building a smelting furnace and a new town,
the lumber company's offer of $1.25 per 1,000 feet of sawed lumber,
its value in the tree, may be accepted. II–824
Where the timber was cut on coal lands under the mistaken belief
that they were open to such cutting, a proposition to pay stumpage
rate of 75 cents per thousand feet of lumber may be accepted.
II–828
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 445
W. COMPROMISE—Continued.
For timber cut by a homesteader from his claim, which he abandons
as soon as the cutting is done, the purchaser must settle by paying
the purchase price. III–1
Stumpage for timber cut on land within homestead entry belongs to
the government. I—624
Proposition of heirs to settle for trespass committed by entryman
accepted. III–349
TVI. CONDONATION.
Sec. 1, act of June 15, 1880, provides that persons who committed
trespasses on the public lands, not mineral, prior to March 1, 1879,
may secure themselves against criminal and civil proceedings by
purchasing the lands at the government price. II–829
The parties committed the trespass in November and December 1877,
were sued civilly, and on compromise in April, 1880, the suits were
withdrawn; on November 9, 1880, they applied to purchase the
land; held, that as they were criminally liable at date of applica-
tion, which was within three years from date of the offense (section
1046, Revised Statutes, and act of April 13, 1876), they were
authorized to purchase the land. II–829
The trespasses were committed from 1870 to 1878, the land being
then and now unsurveyed (California); on June 4, 1883, the tres-
passer offered to purchase the land under the act of June 3, 1878,
which in terms applies to surveyed lands; held, that the facts bring
the case within the remedy of the act of June 15, 1880; that the
delay in purchasing caused by the want of a survey does not render
the law inapplicable when a survey is made; and that he should
be allowed to have a survey under the special deposit system, and
to pay for the land under whichever of these laws is applicable.
II–831
Where one mistakenly and, as alleged, after reasonable inquiry,
deemed the land not public, and, buying a “possessory timber
claim” on it, cut timber in 1880 and 1881, he may settle by pur-
chasing the land. II–833
Where the trespasser purchases but part of the land trespassed on,
he is liable for the depredations oil tile reluainder of the in; if the
purchase is made by other parties, his liability still remains. II–832
The act of June 15, 1880, does not embrace within its intent cases of,
without color of excuse, on lands not purchasable nor open to entry.
WI–725
The entry of unoffered lands not authorized under the first section
of the act of June 15, 1880. VI–725, 738
Parties seeking the benefit of the act of June 15, 1880, must affirma-
tively show themselves entitled thereto. WI–738
.446 TIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
VI. CONDONATION.—Continued.
No new privilege of entry granted by section 1, act of June 15, 1880,
though the effect of patent after issue is enlarged thereby.
VI-725, 738
The fact of trespass does not, under the act of June 15, 1880, give
the trespasser the right to purchase lands otherwise excluded from
sale. v1–725,738
Section 1 of the act of June 15, 1880, relieves (1) from criminal liabil-
ity in case of subsequent entry, and (2) settlers and certain others
from civil liability. WI–738
Subsequent purchase from the State of the land will not excuse tres-
pass committed thereon. & III–266
Trespass not excused by subsequent entry. III–415
Homestead entry for the purpose of obtaining the timber will not
constitute a defense in suit for trespass. III–542
Town Lots. (See Town Site.)
Claimants of, are not required to give notice of intention to make
entry, by publication under act of March 3, 1879. I–501
Notice to adverse claimants may be by personal service, or through
the mails. I–501
Filing not necessary to entry under section 2382, Revised Statutes.
IV—337
Declaratory statements are not required to be filed within three
months after settlement. I–501
The term “actual settler” in section 2382, Revised Statutes, means
actual resident; when one or two lots are entered, the entryman
must actually reside on one lot. II–628; iv.–337
Right of purchase restricted to the lot actually settled upon and one
additional on which the settler has improvements. I-502; IV—337
Additional entry under section 2382, Revised Statutes, allowed on
residence shown upon another lot. Iv–337; V–56
Purchase under section 2382, Revised Statutes, of town lots confined
to settlers having the qualifications of a prečmptor. I–502
The actual settler upon a lot has the preferred right of purchase. V–56
Land within the incorporated limits of a town, which it is not entitled
to enter by reason of its population, and which is not actually set-
tled upon, inhabited and improved, and used for business or muni-
cipal purposes, is subject to prečmption, by virtue of section 1, act
of March 3, 1877. I–497
Township Plat. (See Filing, sub-title, No. 1; Final Proof, sub-title,
No. xlv.; Survey.)
Town Site. (See Mining Claim ; Patent; Town Lots.)
Circular of July 9, 1886 (approved November 5, 1886), as to manner
of acquiring title to. W–265
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 447
Town Site—Continued.
Declaratory statement not required except to save the rights of the
town in the event of a public sale. I–503
Laws only refer to location of towns on public land. I–498; IV—586
Claims for, are in the nature of prečmptions. III–71; IV—54
Actual settlement for, is notice to prečmption and homestead settlers.
III–30
Settlement for, must rest on the principles applicable to other claims
so begun. III–431
Informal settlement subsequently abandoned does not reserve land
from homestead entry. III–282; V–180
Location of, under State laws, on land temporarily appropriated, is
a bar to subsequent homestead entry. W–475
Occupation of land within an Indian reservation for town-site pur-
poses confers no right. III–356
Land reserved from prečmption settlement is equally reserved from
town-site settlement. III–360
Selection of lands for, must be with authority. III–432
Plat filed by railroad company on land withdrawn under its grant
will not strengthen the claim of settlers under the public-land laws.
IV—58 |
As between a town-site claim and a prečmptor, their rights begin with
their initiatory acts. III–358
The right of a town to make entry with respect to acreage must be
computed upon the basis of the number of occupants of the pub-
lic lands. I–500
No specific number of inhabitants requisite to the right of entry
X—208
The law does not prescribe the number of acres that may be taken
for a town of less than one hundred inhabitants, but in the exer.
cise of executive discretion the limit is fixed at the legal subdivi.
sions actually occupied. WI–67.5
Four non-residents can not select and reserve an entire section. III–356
When the site for which application was made by the county judge
was subsequently included within another county, and the entry
made by the judge of the latter county, it was allowed to stand on
the agreement of the parties. III–13
In proceedings to secure, section 2387, Revised Statutes, confers author-
ity upon judge of the county court or “corporate authorities.” I–503
In the absence of incorporation the selection must be made by actual
town-site Settlers to exclude prečmption and homestead settlement.
III–358, 433
The incorporation of a town with limits in excess of 2,560 acres will
not bar prečmption entry within said limits, on land not actually
settled upon and used for business and municipal purposes. I-497;
III–77
448 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
Town Site—Continued.
Private cash entry of offered land, not within corporate limits, may
be made for town site without reference to the statutory limitation
with respect to population. III–30
Claim concluded by homesteader's final proof after due notice. IV—586
The cancellation of homestead entries on offered land leaves it with-
drawn from private entry and subject to disposal for town site as
unoffered land. III–30
Land entered under section 2387 must be paid for as though pur-
chased by a prečmptor. IV—54
Additional entry can not be allowed to a town that holds under its
former entry more land than its present population would entitle
it to enter. VII–143
Proof required in entry of, and how made. I–503
If land is mineral it is subject to location only under the mining law,
without reference to its relative value for town-site purposes; this
ruling was changed by circular September 22, 1882. II–717, 71S
Procedure when the land applied for is alleged to be mineral, regu-
lated by the instructions of September 23, 1880, and October 31,
188 i. I–504
Conflict with mining claim left with jury of neighborhood. IV-212
On mineral land subject to the rights of claimants therefor. IV-212
Entries in Oklahoma restricted by statute; circular of April 1, 1889.
VIII–336
The act of March 2, 1889, with respect to entries under sections 2387
and 2388 does not extend to a corporation seeking to locate and
enter prospective town sites (Oklahoma). VIII–42.5
Circular instructious with respect to entries in the Territory of Okla.
homa. X-604, 666
©
Transferee. (See Alienation; Final Proof; Practice, sub-title, No. IX.)
Trespass. (See Public Land; Settlement; Timber Trespass.)
Wagon-Road Grant.
Of July 5, 1866, one of quantity, to be selected within certain limits,
and without selection no right attaches to any Specific tract.
V–650; x–456
Does not attach to any specific tract by definite location or construc-
tion of the road. X-456
Executive withdrawal in aid of, does not take effect on land covered
by valid settlement claim. X—456
The act of March 2, 1889, does not deprive the Department of juris.
diction over lands within the grant of July 5, 1866, or bar the is-
suance of patents for lands excepted from said grant. X-456
During pendency of suit under the act of March 2, 1889, no patents
will be issued to the company or its assignee. X-459
DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS. 449
Wagon-Road Grant—Continued.
In a grant of quantity within boundaries determined by the con-
struction of the road (Willamette Valley and Cascade Mountain
• Wagon Road) rights do not attach without selection. W–650
Definite location and construction of road does not effect a with-
drawal of the land under a grant of quantity or cause it to attach
to any specific tract without selection. W–650; X-456
Filing allowed within limits of indemnity withdrawal for wagon-road
grant subject to the company’s right of selection. I–3S9
Waiver. (See Practice, sub-titles, Nos. IV and IX.)
Presumed on failure to assert claim. IV-194
Of claimed right as prečmptor, held from subsequent application for
the land as homestead. IV—233
To be operative must follow an agreement resting upon a valuable
consideration. IV—332
Not a, unless the act is such as to estop the party from taking ad-
vantage thereof to the injury of another who has acted upon it.
{ IV—332
Warrant. (See Scrip.)
I. GENERALLY.
II. VIRGINIA. MILITARY.
I. GENERALLY.
Not assignable in blank. IV–172
On file in the Pension Office to be returned to the General Land
Office. I–1
Is canceled by location and issue of patent. IV—172
Location inadvertently noted constitutes no appropriation of the land
covered thereby. - V–2()2
Military bounty, not certified in advance of offer to locate. V–178
The public has a right to rely on the long-standing ruling of the De-
partment that a military bounty land warrant in the hands of a
bona fide purchaser, without notice, may not be canceled on the
ground that it was issued under misapprehension. III–101
Commissioner of General Land Office to determine as to the bona,
fides of holders. I–1
Purchaser of, issued in the name of one deceased without heirs, or of
a fictitious person, not an innocent holder. I–1
Military bounty, in the hands of innocent assignee may not be can-
celed by the Commissioner of Pensions. I–1
Are receivable only in the form of locations, and not in payment of
prečmption entries; manner of locating them explained. II–673
In case of dispute as to which one of two applicants for the right of
substitution is the real “party in interest,” patent may issue in the
name of the original locator, and be delivered to a trustee named
by the parties. WI-375
10464—29
450 DIGEST OF LAND DECISIONS.
I. GENERALLY-Continued.
Where the right of substitution is dependent upon a determination
as to which one of two applicants is the rightful “party in inter-
est,” and that matter can only be settled in the courts, no award
of the right will be made. WI-375
In the case of a valid entry and objection to the, patent may issue
on filing a substitute therefor. WI-375
No relief for unperfected location where the land has passed from the
jurisdiction of the Department. IV—172
Being lost, and no effort made to procure duplicate, the location is
canceled in favor of parties holding under the locator. IV–192
Deposits, on the substitution of cash for warrants, will be made
through the proper local office. III–146
Location of, issued by the State (California) in satisfaction of the
internal improvement grant, confirmed by the act of July 23, 1866.
VII–543
II, VIRGIN IA MILITARY.
The act of May 27, 1880, cures no defects originating under the act
2 g s
of March 3, 1855. I–3, 11
Locations of Virginia military, surveyed and returned before March
3, 1857, recognized. I–3, 11, 17
Patents provided by the act of May 27, 1880, for certain entries made
under Virginia military. I–3, 5, 11, 17
History of legislation with respect to location of, in Virginia military
district, Ohio. 1–5, 11
The third section of the act of May 27, 1880, in effect a new grant.
I–5, 11
The grant of one-third additional bounty, by the State act of October
1780, was intended only for the benefit of those officers for whom a
provision for bounty land had been previously made. II–12
A major-general was entitled to 15,000 acres under the State act of
October 1780, and to one-sixth additional for each years' service
beyond the term of six years, under the act of May, 1782. II–14
Warrants issued in June, 1783, to amount of 17,500 acres, for seven
years' service as major-general, ending May 30, 1783, were in full
satisfaction of the claim. II–9
The decisions of the officers of the State, charged with the duty of
issuing the Warrants, are final, and bind the parties and their priv-
ies. II–13
A claim for the issue of scrip for 5,833% acres additional, founded on
a warrant issued in 1882, will not be entertained. II–14
Claims allowed by Virginia prior to March 1, 1852, entitled to recog-
nition without respect to the time when the warrant issued. V-531
Certain lands reserved for location of Virginia scrip. W–533
WASHINGTON. (See States and Territories.)
DIGEST OF LAND DIECISIONS. 451
Water Right. (See Mining Claim, sub-title No. XIV.)
Application for a water right under guise of a placer claim will be
rejected. II–774; III–536
Acquired by priority of appropriation ; and protected under sections
2339 and 2340, R. S. I-27; V–191
Title to water used for reclamation of desert land must be by bona
fide prior appropriation. I–27
Acquired by appropriation relates back to the beginning of work
thereunder, if such work is prosecuted with reasonable diligence.
IX-6
The sale of a, confers upon the purchaser all the rights acquired by
the vendor, through a prior appropriation thereof. IX—6
An adverse claim as against an alleged prior appropriation, will not
be recognized, if it appears that undisturbed possession has been
maintained under such appropriation for a period sufficient to estab-
lish title by prescription. IX—6
The Land Department has authority to determine questions pertain-
ing to the appropriation of water for the reclamation of desert land.
IX—6
Sections 2339 and 2340 of the Revised Statutes do not authorize the
Department to reserve land for reservoir purposes. X—171
Not necessarily in conflict with mill-site claim, as both may be located
on the same land. W–190
Not patentable as such. W–191
Wyoming. (See School Land.)