Winona & St. Peter R. Co. v. United StatesAnnotate this Case
165 U.S. 483 (1897)
U.S. Supreme Court
Winona & St. Peter R. Co. v. United States, 165 U.S. 483 (1897)
Winona and St. Peter Railroad Company v. United States
Submitted December 1, 1896
Decided February 15, 1897
165 U.S. 483
Anterior to any claim of right under its grant by the Winona and St. Peter Railroad Company, by virtue either of filing its map of definite location or of surveying and staking its line upon the ground, a preemption filing was placed upon the land. This filing was never cancelled. The claimant entered into possession and continued so either personally or through a tenant until after the construction of the railroad, and until after the .railroad company had conveyed the land to a land company, and until an action of ejectment was brought by the land company. The court below was of opinion, in which this Court concurs, that the land company could not be considered a purchaser in good faith from the railroad company; that it took its conveyance with notice, from possession, of all the rights and the claims of the party so in possession; that it therefore did not bring itself within the protecting clauses of the Act of March 3, 1887, c. 376, 24 Stat. 556, and that there was nothing to stay the right of the government to have the certification, so erroneously issued, cancelled.
This case distinguished from United States v. Winona & St. Peter Railroad Company, ante,165 U. S. 463.
This was a bill filed by the United States in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Minnesota against the Winona and St. Peter Railroad Company, the Winona and St. Peter Land Company, and Thomas Marshall, Jr. The suit was one to set aside the certification of a patent made to the State of Minnesota for the benefit of the defendant railroad company of the northeast quarter of section 35,
township 106 north, range 18 west, which certification was of date December 1, 1862. After answers, proof, and an agreed statement as to certain facts, a decree was entered by the circuit court August 29, 1894, dismissing the bill. On appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, this decree was, on May 6, 1895, reversed, 67 F. 969, and the case remanded with instructions to enter a decree granting the relief prayed for.
It appears from the agreed statement that on July 3, 1857, Thomas Marshall, Jr., one of the defendants, made a preemption filing at the proper local land office of the land in controversy, which filing was prima facie regular and valid and was never cancelled on the records of the land office. The construction of the railroad of the defendant railroad company was conceded, and it was agreed that on the 1st of March, 1877, defendant Marshall, being still in possession and claiming to be the owner thereof, the defendant land company, which had a conveyance from the railroad company, commenced an action of ejectment against him in the District Court of Dodge County, Minnesota, that court having jurisdiction of the subject matter; that Marshall appeared in such action, and such proceedings were had that, on the 9th day of December, 1878, the court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the possession of the land; that no appeal was taken from such judgment, and that the same now remains in full force and effect, and that, in pursuance thereof, said Marshall surrendered possession to the defendant land company, and since that time the defendant land company has remained in possession, and paid the taxes; that Marshall, on November 15, 1887, filed with the Commissioner of the General Land Office, and now has pending before the Land Department, an application for reinstatement of his rights to said land, which application has not been acted upon, as it is held by the said department that it has no jurisdiction to pass thereon. Other facts are agreed to such as are stated in the opinion in the case No. 321 of the United States against the same railroad company and others, just decided. Ante,165 U. S. 463.
Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.