Congress, in the grant made by the Act of May 12, 1864, 13 Stat.
72, had in view two railroads, one extending from Sioux City to the
Minnesota line, the other from South McGregor by a named route to a
point of intersection with the Sioux City road, and the Chicago,
Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company, as the successor in right
of the McGregor Company, is in no position to question the decree
just affirmed in
Sioux City & St. Paul Railroad Co. v.
United States, establishing the title of the United States as
against the Sioux City Company, and is estopped by the decree in
Sioux City & St. Paul Railroad v. Chicago, Milwaukee &
St. Paul Railway, 117 U. S. 406,
from making any claim whatever to the lands in controversy in this
suit.
Neither of the railroad companies named in said Act of May 12,
1864, could get the benefit of the moiety of lands granted for the
building of the other, in the overlapping limits of the two roads,
by reason of the failure of the other to construct its road.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Page 159 U. S. 373
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
After the circuit court had announced its conclusions in the
case of
Sioux City & St. Paul Railroad Company v. United
States, just decided, the Milwaukee Company obtained leave to
intervene as a defendant and by cross-bill assert its right to the
lands in Dickinson and O'Brien Counties, originally patented to the
State of Iowa for the use of the Sioux City and St. Paul Railroad
Company, and
within the conflicting place limits of the two
roads, but which the state held, and never conveyed to that
company, and which the court below found to be the property of the
United States as against the Sioux City Company and the trustees in
the mortgages executed by it.
Such a cross-bill was filed before the entry in the court below
of a final decree on the original bill, and the cause was left
undetermined as to the claims asserted by the Milwaukee Company in
its cross-bill.
Benjamin Olson, Peter Anderson, and others, parties defendant in
the original suit, intervened, with leave of the court, as
defendants, and by a cross-bill against the Milwaukee Company and
the Sioux City Company asserted rights to portions of the lands in
controversy, having settled, they alleged, on such lands under the
laws of the United States between the years 1881 and 1887 and made
valuable improvements thereon.
The United States answered the cross-bill of the Milwaukee
Company, and also filed an amended bill in which it prayed that by
final decree its title to the lands awarded to it by the original
decree as against the Sioux City Company be established and quieted
as against the Milwaukee Company.
The court below rendered a decree in favor of the United States
on this amended bill, and dismissed the cross-bill of the Milwaukee
Company.
The cross-bill of Olson and others was dismissed without
prejudice. This was done because the pleadings presented no issue
as between the settlers and the United States, the cross-bill of
the settlers being against the railroad companies only.
Page 159 U. S. 374
We are of opinion that the appellant has no reason in law to
complain of the decree of the circuit court.
Although the Act of May 12, 1864, would, if its title alone were
consulted, furnish some slight ground for the contention that the
object of the grant therein was to aid in the construction of "a
railroad," its provisions plainly show that Congress had in view
two railroads -- one extending from Sioux City to the Minnesota
line, the other from South McGregor by a named route to a point of
intersection in the County of O'Brien with the Sioux City road.
The grant was of every alternate section designated by odd
numbers for ten sections in width "on each side of said roads," and
therefore for the benefit of the roads separately. As decided in
the other case, no part of the lands granted in aid of the
construction of one road could be applied in aid of the other road.
The act is to be interpreted as if Congress by one act made a grant
to the state in aid of the construction of the Sioux City road on
the route designated, and by another and separate act, passed at
the same time, made a grant to the state in aid of the construction
of the other road from South McGregor to a point of intersection
with the Sioux City road.
It appeared in the original case, and appears in the present
case made by the cross-bill of the Milwaukee road -- and Congress,
in requiring an intersection of the two roads, must have
anticipated such a condition of things -- that because of the
conflict between the two grants, it was impossible to set apart for
each road every alternate odd-numbered section for ten sections in
width on each side of every part of its located line. Consequently,
in the suit brought against the Sioux City Company by the Milwaukee
Company as the last successor to the McGregor Western Railroad
Company, by a final decree framed pursuant to the directions given
by this Court in
Sioux City & St. Paul Railroad v. Chicago,
Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway, 117 U.
S. 406, the lands within the conflicting lines were,
prior to the institution of the present suit, partitioned between
the companies.
The claim of the Milwaukee Company now is that it is
Page 159 U. S. 375
entitled, under the Act of May 12, 1864, to the lands involved
in the present controversy, although by the decree in
Sioux
City & St. Paul Railroad v. Milwaukee & St. Paul
Railway[crs1], and which is conclusive between those
companies, they have been withheld from it upon the specific ground
that they were never granted by Congress to aid in the construction
of the McGregor or Milwaukee road, but were granted in aid of the
construction of the Sioux City road, and for no other purpose. If,
as matter of law and fact, these lands were never granted for the
benefit of the Milwaukee road, but were granted in aid of the
construction of the Sioux City road, and for no other purpose, they
could never -- consistently with the act of Congress -- have been
used by the state for the benefit of the Milwaukee road.
Sioux
City & St. Paul Railroad, ante, just decided.
It is therefore of no concern to the Milwaukee Company, as the
successor in right of the McGregor Company, what was done with them
by the state, nor whether the United States legally reacquired
title to them as against the Sioux City Company. It is in no
position to question the decree on the original bill establishing
the title of the United States as against the Sioux City Company,
and it is estopped by the decree in the suit which it brought to
make any claim whatever to these lands. If, as has been
conclusively adjudged, the Milwaukee Company was without title or
claim as against the Sioux City Company, no rights could
subsequently accrue to it by reason of the decree declaring that
these lands reverted to the United States by reason of the failure
of the Sioux City Company and of the state to construct the road
over the entire route from Sioux City to the Minnesota line. As
these lands were set apart exclusively for the construction of the
Sioux City road, no failure to construct that road by the state or
by the corporation charged with the duty of building it could in
any case, without the assent of Congress, justify their being
applied in aid of the construction of another and distinct
road.
The defendant rests its claim in part upon the Act of the Iowa
Legislature of February 27, 1878, c. 21. By that act,
Page 159 U. S. 376
the state resumed all lands and rights theretofore granted to
the McGregor & Sioux City Railway Company, the immediate
successor of the McGregor Western Railroad Company, and conferred
upon the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company (which
succeeded in right the McGregor & Sioux City Railway
Company)
"all lands and rights of lands, whether, in severalty, jointly,
or in common, and including all lands or rights to lands or any
interest therein or claims thereto, whether certified or not,
embraced within the overlapping or conflicting limits of the two
grants or roads made and described by the act of Congress
hereinafter designated [the Act of May 12, 1864] granted to the
State of Iowa to aid in the construction of a railroad"
from South McGregor to intersect with the road from Sioux City
to the Minnesota line. It is contended that when it became certain
that the Sioux City Company had, by failure to construct its road
within the time specified by the act of Congress, lost its right to
the lands, the state, to which they had been patented specifically
for the use and benefit of the Sioux City road, could pass to the
Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Company the title to any lands
within the overlapping limits that had not been, and could not or
would not be, applied to the Sioux City road.
This position cannot be sustained upon any theory that would be
consistent with the act of Congress. As we have already said in
Sioux City & St. Paul Railroad v. United States, the
grant of an equal undivided moiety of lands in the overlapping
limits of two roads was a grant for the benefit of each road of the
particular moiety of lands dedicated by the act of Congress to its
construction. Neither road could get the benefit or the moiety of
lands granted for the building of the other road by reason of the
failure of the company constructing the latter road to earn
its moiety of the lands. This results from the explicit
declaration by Congress of the purposes for which the lands were to
be used, and by express words excluding all others. The provision
that the lands "hereby granted shall be disposed of by said state
for the purposes aforesaid only" precludes the idea that the
state
Page 159 U. S. 377
could, without a breach of trust, apply lands for the benefit of
one road that had been granted to aid the construction of another
road.
Besides, it is manifest from the face of the act of the Iowa
Legislature of 1878 that there was no purpose to give the Milwaukee
or McGregor road the benefit of any lands not granted to aid in its
construction; for the language of that act was that:
"When said railroad [the McGregor road] shall have been built
and constructed to the point of connection with the Sioux City and
St. Paul Railroad, then and thereupon the governor of this state
shall patent and transfer to said Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul
Railway Company all the remaining lands belonging to or embraced in
said grant
appertaining to their line of railroad,
including all or any part or moiety of the lands in said
overlapping limits which, by the terms of said act of Congress,
appertain to their line of road."
ยง 3.
It having been finally adjudged, as between the Sioux City
Company and the Milwaukee Company, that these lands did not
appertain to the latter road, there is no foundation for a suit by
the Milwaukee Company to compel the United States to surrender any
title it may have or claim, however such title may have been
acquired.
Decree affirmed.