CAMPBELL
v.
WEYERHAEUSER
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Campbell applied to purchase public land under a land grant statute, but the Land Department rejected his application and denied him entry to the land. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Campbell's bill seeking to charge the railroad's patent title, holding that Campbell acquired no equitable interest in the land through his rejected application and therefore could not maintain an equity claim against the railroad's subsequent selection of substitute lieu land.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court.
This case and the Hoyt case, just decided, are of the same general character, and were consolidated and tried below as one case. In this case, however, the application of Campbell to purchase the tract by him claimed was rejected by the Land Department, and Campbell was not permitted to enter the land. The land furnishing the selection basis also lay further west in Minnesota than the lost tract in the Hoyt case. . The Court of Appeals held that Campbell acquired no equitable interest in the land by his application, and the denial thereof, and consequently he could not maintain a bill in equity to charge the title under the patent issued to the railroad company upon a selection of a tract as lieu land, and affirmed the decree of the Circuit Court dismissing the bill. As in any event the decision rendered in the Hoyt case is decisive of this, we hold that the bill was rightly dismissed, and the decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals is therefore
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Harlan and Mr. Justice Day dissent for the reasons set forth in the dissenting opinion in case of Weyerhaeuser v. Hoyt, ante, p. 380.