1. Under the Act of March 2, 1899, a lieu selection of
unsurveyed land made by the Northern Pacific Railway Company may be
designated "with reasonable certainty" by reference to the nearest
public survey, 72 miles distant. P.
255 U. S. 269.
See West v. Rutledge Timber Co., 244 U. S.
90.
2. Where a state's application for a survey under the Act of
August 18, 1894, was held excessive and ultimately rejected by the
Land Department, and no appeal taken,
held that it did not
so withdraw the included land from the public domain as to
invalidate a railroad lieu selection made while it was pending. P.
255 U. S.
270.
258 F. 11 reversed.
Page 255 U. S. 269
This was an appeal from a decree of the circuit court of appeals
reversing a decree of the district court dismissing a bill brought
by the present appellee against the appellants to charge them as
trustees in respect of lands held under a patent from the United
States. The facts are stated in the opinion.
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 unsurveyed
and not designated with reasonable certainty, and (2) it was 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 not consider the second point.
Farrell v. Edward Rutledge Timber Co., 258 F. 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
Page 255 U. S. 270
was 7 1/2 miles from any known survey, while there, the distance
was 3 1/2 miles. 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 survey 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.
