Kansas City, L. & So. Kans. R. Co. v. Attorney General
Annotate this Case
118 U.S. 682 (1886)
- Syllabus |
U.S. Supreme Court
Kansas City, L. & So. Kans. R. Co. v. Attorney General, 118 U.S. 682 (1886)
Kansas City, Lawrence, and South Kansas
Railroad Company v. Attorney General
Argued October 18-19, 1886
Decided November 8, 1886
118 U.S. 682
The Acts of Congress of March 3, 1863, 12 Stat. 772; July 1, 18G4, 13 Stat. 339, and July 26, 1866, 14 Stat. 289, granting lands to the State of Kansas for railroad purposes, are to be construed in pari materia, and as having the one purpose of building a single road from Fort Riley, down the Neosho Valley, to the southern line of that state, and not as distinct grants for different roads, which may come in conflict in the claims under them in regard to the lands granted.
The junction of this road with the one from Leavenworth by way of Lawrence in the direction of Galveston Bay, as provided in the act of 1863, was not required to be on the very crest of the Neosho Valley as reached by the latter road, but at a convenient point for such crossing in the narrow valley of the Neosho River, and as this point has been adopted by the companies building both roads, and accepted by the officers of the Land Department in selecting indemnity lands, there is no sufficient reason to be found in the point of junction to vacate the certification of these lands to the state for the company which has built the road and received the patents of the state.
Nor is there any other sufficient reason found in the record in this case for setting aside the evidences of title to these lands issued to the corporation which built the road within the time required by law, to the approval of the officers of the government whose primary duty it was to certify these lands and who did so within the scope of their powers.
This was a bill in equity brought by the Attorney General of the United States to quiet the title to certain lands in Kansas.
The decree below was in favor of the Attorney General, from which the railroad company appealed. The case is stated in the opinion of the Court.