RIO GRANDE WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY
v.
STRINGHAM

U.S. | 1915-11-01
Nos. 4, 5
239 U.S. 44 Supreme Court of the United States (1915) Caution
Also reported at: 60 L. Ed. 136 · 36 S. Ct. 5 · SCDB 1915-061 · 1915 U.S. LEXIS 1522
Cited by 76 cases

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.

Synopsis

Rio Grande Western Railway Company sought to quiet title to a railroad right of way granted under the Act of March 3, 1875, which defendants claimed was subject to their placer mining patent. The Supreme Court of Utah determined that the railroad held a right of way two hundred feet wide (one hundred feet on each side of the track centerline) through the mining claim, and the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a right of way granted under the federal act is a limited fee with an implied condition of reverter if the railroad ceases to use the land, not a mere easement or absolute fee simple.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice Van Devanter

Mr. Justice Van Devanter delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a suit to quiet the title to a strip of land claimed and used by the plaintiff as a railroad right of way under the act of March 3, 1875, c. 152, 18 Stat. 482, and to which the defendants asserted title under a patent for a placer mining claim. At the trial the facts were specially found and judgment for the defendants was entered upon the findings. In reviewing that judgment the Supreme Court of the State, accepting the findings below, held that the plaintiff in virtue of proceedings had in the Land Department under the Right-of-Way Act while the land was yet public acquired a right of way two hundred feet wide through the lands afterwards embraced in the mining claim and that the defendants’ title under the placer patent was subject to this right of way, and thereupon reversed the judgment and remanded the case with a direction to “enter a judgment awarding to the plaintiff title to a right of way over the lands in .question one hundred feet wide on each side of the center of the track.” 38 Utah, 113. Acting upon this direction the trial court vacated its prior judgment and entered another adjudging the plaintiff to be “the owner of a right of way” through the mining claim one hundred feet wide on each side of the centér line of the railroad, declaring the plaintiff’s title to such right of way good and valid, and enjoining the defendants from asserting any claim whatever to the premises, or any part'thereof, adverse to the plaintiff’s “said right of way.” The plaintiff again appealed insisting that it was only adjudged to be the owner of a right of way when according to the true effect of the Right-of-Way Act' it had a title in fee simple, as was asserted in its complaint. But the judgment was affirmed, the court saying (39 Utah, 236):

“If counsel for appellant thought that this court, in the prior opinion, did not correctly define and determine the extent of appellant’s rights to the land in dispute, or did not fully safeguard its rights as defined and adjudged, they should have filed a petition for a rehearing. This they did not do. The conclusions of law and judgment having been drawn and entered in conformity with the decision of this court, we are precluded from further considering the. case. The former decision became, and is the law of the case, and this court, as well as the litigants, are bound thereby.” Being in doubt which of the judgments of the appellate coürt should be brought here for review to present properly the question respecting the nature of its title, the plaintiff concluded to bring up both, each by a separate writ of error. Manifestly the first judgment was final within the meaning of Jud. Code, § 237. It disposed of the whole case on the merits, directed what judgment should be entered and left nothing, to the judicial discretion of the trial court. Board of Commissioners v. Lucas, 93 U. S. 108; Bostwick v. Brinkerhoff, 106 U. S. 3; Mower v. Fletcher, 114 U. S. 127; Chesapeake & Pot. Tel. Co. v. Manning, 186 U. S. 238. And as the question sought to be presented arises upon the first judgment — it being final in the sense of § 237 — it is apparent that the writ of error addressed to the second judgment presents nothing reviewable here. See Northern Pacific R. R. v. Ellis, 144 U. S. 458; Great West. Tel. Co. v. Burnham, 162 U. S. 339; Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. v. McCabe, 213 U. S. 207, 214.

What the act relied upon grants to a railroad company complying with its requirements is spoken of throughout the act as a “right of way,” and by way of qualifying future disposals of lands to which such a right has attached, the act declares that “all such lands over which such right of way shall pass shall be disposed of subject to such right of way.”.

The right of way granted by this and similar acts is neither a mere easement, nor a fee simple absolute, but a limited fee, made on an implied condition of reverter in the event that the company ceases to use or retain the land for the purposes for which it is granted, and carries with it the incidents and remedies usually attending the fee. New Mexico v. United States Trust Co., 172 U. S. 171, 183; Northern Pacific Ry. v. Townsend, 190 U. S. 267, 271; United States v. Michigan, 190 U. S. 379, 398; West. Un. Tel. Co. v. Pennsylvania R. R., 195 U. S. 540, 570. The judgment under review does not in words so characterize the plaintiff’s right nor was it essential that it should do so. It describes the right in the exact terms of the Right-of-Way Act and evidently uses those terms with the same meaning they have in the act. So interpreting the judgment, as plainly must be done, we think it accords to the plaintiff all to which it is entitled under the act.

In No. 4 Judgment affirmed.

In No. 5 Writ of error dismissed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (21 total)

  • Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Bd. of Bond Trs. of Special Rd. & Bridge Dist. No. 1 of Alachua Cnty., 91 Fla. 612 (Fla. 1926)
    …acquisition of title by adverse possession, under the laws of a State (Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Ely, 197, U. S. 1, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 302; Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Townsend, 190 U. S. 267, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 671; Rio Grande Western R. Co. v. Stringham, 239 U. S. 44, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 5; Great Northern R. Co. v. Steinke, 261 U. S. 119, 43 Sup. Ct. Rep. 316, L. R. A. 1916B 658) except as may be permitted by Acts of Congress. Stuart v. Union Pac. R. Co., 227 U. S. 342, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 338; Union Pac. R. Co. v.…
  • Great N. Ry. Co. v. United States, 315 U.S. 262 (U.S. 1942)
    …r the purpose of drilling for or removing oil, gas and minerals underlying the right of way.” The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. 119 F. 2d 821. The importance of the question and an asserted conflict with Rio Grande Western Ry. Co. v. Stringham, 239 U. S. 44, moved us to grant certiorari. 314 U. S. 596. The Act of March 3,1875, from which petitioner’s rights stem, clearly grants only an easement, and not a fee. Section 1 indicates that the right is one of passage since it grants “the,” not a, “right of…
    1 / 4
  • United States v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 353 U.S. 112 (U.S. 1957)
    …Chief Justice Waite called “extraordinary inducements.” Sinking-Fund Cases, 99 U. S. 700, 723. The Great Northern decision departed from the Court's earlier construction of the General Right of Way Statute in Rio Grande Western R. Co. v. Stringham, 239 U. S. 44. The Stringham case, written by Mr. Justice Van Devanter, held, on the basis of the cases dealing with pre-1871 legislation, that right of way granted by the 1875 Act “is ... a limited fee, . . . and carries with it the incidents and remedies usuall…
    1 / 2

Previewing 3 of 21 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited (11 total)

View all 11 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw