EDWARD RUTLEDGE TIMBER COMPANY ET. AL.
v.
FARRELL
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.
A homesteader's predecessor claimed equitable title to lands patented to a railway company under federal land selection laws, arguing the patent should not have issued because the land was unsurveyed and lay within a district for which Idaho had applied for state survey rights. The Supreme Court affirmed that the railway company's selection was valid despite the land being unsurveyed, as the Land Department had found the description sufficiently certain, and that Idaho's mere application for survey did not withdraw the land from the public domain or invalidate the railway's selection rights.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the court.
Claiming equitable title thereto under the homestead laws, appellee’s predecessor, Delany, instituted this proceeding in the United States District Court for Idaho to compel the appellants to hold certain lands, patented to the Railway Company, as trustee for him. The insistence is that patent should not have issued to the Company, notwithstanding the attempt to make selection under the Act of March 2, 1899, c. 377, 30 Stat. 993, prior to initiation of any homestead right in the land, because (1) it was then unsurvéyed and not designated with reasonable certainty, and (2) it Vas within a district survey of which had been applied for by the State of Idaho under Act of August 18,1894, c. 301, 28 Stat. 372, 394.
The District Court decided both points in favor of appellants and dismissed the bill; the Circuit Court of Appeals held against them on the first but,did net consider the second point. 258 Fed. Rep. 161.
The facts pertinent to the first point are substantially , the same as those presented by the record in West v. Rutledge Timber Co., 244 U. S. 90, except that here the land was miles from any known survey while there the distance was Z}/¿ bailes. The Land Department found the description sufficient for reasonable certainty and we see no adequate ground for disregarding that conclusion.
As the district designated by Idaho, for survey contained very much more land than the State was entitled, to select, the Land Department refused to consider the application. No appeal was taken. Upon an analysis of pertinent statutes, opinions of the Land Department and of this court, the District Court held that the mere filing of application for survéy did not so far withdraw the land from the public domain as to make the.Railway’s selection wholly ineffective; and further, that if valid for any purpose, the application merely gave an option to select, never exercised in respect of the land now in dispute. We agree with the conclusion reached; and in view of the careful supporting opinion further discussion seems unnecessary.
The decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals must be reversed and the decree of the District Court affirmed.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Great N. Ry. Co. v. Reed, 270 U.S. 539 (U.S. 1926)…ntiguous to it. The Donohue Case and the Bower Case taken together illustrate the principle of prior cases and show how it should be applied here. Decree reversed. See West v. Rutledge Timber Co., 244 U. S. 90, 98; Rutledge Timber Co. v. Farrell, 255 U. S. 268. See Weyerhaeuser v. Hoyt, 219 U. S. 380, 387; Payne v. New Mexico, 255 U. S. 367, 370; Wyoming v. United States, 255 U. S. 489, 496. He testified: “It was about March as near as I can get at it— between February and May.” , Amley v. Sando, 2 L.…
-
United States (Jones v. N. PAC. RY. Co. (D. Mont. 1924)…undaries of which are four square to the cardinal points of the compass, and the northwest corner of which is one mile east of the permanent monument at the corner common to the survey of sections 5, 6, 7, and 8 of said township.” See Rutledge Case, 255 U. S. 268, 41 Sup. Ct. 328, 65 L. Ed. 623, and its citations. [3] In the matter of the mistake in identity of the land, alleged to have been made by the examiner, it is predicated upon certain descriptive narrative by him in his report, and which in the ligh…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- West v. Edward Rutledge Timber Co., 244 U.S. 90 (U.S. 1917)