This case is governed by the rule laid down in
Lake Superior
Canal &c. Co. v. Cunningham, ante, 155 U. S. 354,
but, as the land in controversy is near the crossing of two lines
that had received separate grants, it is further subject to the
rule that where two lines of road are aided by land grants made by
the same act, and the lines of those roads cross or intersect, the
lands within the "place" limits of both at the crossing or
intersection do not pass to either company in preference to the
other, no matter which line may be first located, or built, but
pass in equal undivided moieties to each.
The case is stated in the opinion.
MR. JUSTICE BREWER delivered the opinion of the Court.
The land in controversy in this case, as that in controversy in
the two prior cases, is a tract which was certified to the State of
Michigan on December 12, 1861, as part of the railroad grant, and
afterwards, in 1871, again certified to the state in part
satisfaction of the canal grant. Donahue, the plaintiff in error,
entered upon the land in February, 1883, and has ever since
remained in possession. He entered with the view of preempting, and
made his first application under the preemption laws on April 11,
1883. His application was rejected by the local office, from which
rejection he appealed to the Commissioner of the General Land
Office, and the appeal is still pending in the department. His
entry and occupation were such as, within the opinion in the
Cunningham
Page 155 U. S. 387
case, made him a
bona fide claimant, and entitled to
the benefit of the confirmation granted by the closing sentence in
section 3 of the Act of March 2, 1889.
The tract was not, however, within the "clear" six-miles limits
of the Ontonagon and state Line road, but was near the crossing of
the Ontonagon and the Marquette lines, and within six miles of
each, and was part of the 41,649.25 acres certified on December 10,
1861, by the land office, in a separate list to the state, which
list was, as appears from the statement of facts in the
Cunningham case, included in the release made on January
31, 1868, by the Chicago and Northwestern Railway Company to the
state, and that on May 1, 1868, by the governor of the state to the
United States. On that ground it was held by the circuit court that
the lands at the time of the second certification to the state,
to-wit, that in satisfaction of the canal grant, were wholly
released from the operation of the railroad grant, and were subject
to selection and certification for the benefit of the canal
company, and that such selection and certification operated to pass
to it a full title -- a title which could not be defeated by any
subsequent entry by the defendant for either homestead or
preemption. The case turns, therefore, on the effect of the
releases to the state and by it to the United States.
By the original Act of June 3, 1856, grants of land were made in
aid of the construction of two roads -- one from Marquette to the
state line and one from Ontonagon to the state line. These grants
were bestowed by the State of Michigan separately on the Marquette
and Ontonagon Companies. The rule is that where two lines of road
are aided by land grants made by the same act, and the lines of
those roads cross or intersect, the lands within the "place" limits
of both at the crossing or intersection do not pass to either
company in preference to the other, no matter which line may be
first located, or road built, but pass in equal, undivided moieties
to each.
St. Paul & Sioux City Railroad v. Winona & St.
Peter Railroad, 112 U. S. 720;
Sioux City and St. Paul Railroad v. Chicago, Milwakee &c.
Railway, 117 U. S. 406.
This rule was evidently in the mind of Congress when it passed the
confirmatory
Page 155 U. S. 388
act of 1889, for in the last sentence of section four there is a
provision that a moiety forfeited on account of the noncompletion
of one main or branch line should not inure to the benefit of the
completed line. When, therefore, the roads from Marquette and
Ontonagon, respectively, to the state line were duly located, the
lands within six miles of both at the intersection became
appropriated, in equal, undivided moieties, to aid in the
construction of each. The fact of the consolidation of the
Marquette and the Ontonagon Companies with the Fond du Lac Company,
and the further fact that the map of definite location was prepared
and filed by the consolidated company, in no manner affect this
rule of appropriation. The lands were granted by the United States
to the state for the accomplishment of specified purposes, and
those purposes could not be defeated by the state or by any
corporations beneficiaries under the state.
It may be that the release of the Chicago and Northwestern
Railway Company, at that time the beneficial owner of both the
Marquette and the Ontonagon grants, operated to relinquish to the
State of Michigan the title to all the lands within such grants,
but the only release authorized by the legislature of the State of
Michigan was of the lands granted to aid in the construction of the
road from Marquette to the Wisconsin state line. This authorized no
giving up of the grant in aid of the construction of the road from
Ontonagon to the state line, and as that held an undivided moiety
of the lands at the crossing, to that extent, at least, it still
remained after all the releases. It may be a novel condition which
resulted, in that it left the state and the United States joint
owners, each holding the title to an undivided moiety of this body
of lands, and it may be that further evidence may place the case in
a different attitude, but on the record as it now stands, it would
seem that the plaintiff and the defendant were each the owners of
an undivided half of the land in controversy. Inasmuch, therefore,
as the circuit court erred in adjudging to the canal company the
full title to the land, its judgment must be
Reversed, and the case remanded for a new trial.