« ZurückWeiter »
SALT LAKE CITY.
Copp's LAND OWNER for this month reports Nos. 67, 69, 72, 76, 78, 81, 82, 83, 86, 89, 93, 96, 98, 99, 100, Lode. the issuance of patents on the Cash Entries 101, 102, 106, 109, 112, 120, 125, 129, 130, 137. Desert Lands!
Nos. 5888, 5890, 5892, 4893, 5903, 5905, 5709, 5910,5931,5934, F. G. Nagle, Gregory Lode.
5935, 6595, 6596, 6599, 6600 to 6619 inclusive, 6621 to 6625 Hal Sayr, Autocrat and Esperanza Lodes.
inclusive, 6627 to 6644 inclusive, 6646, 6647, 6653, 6656 to Florence and Tucson Series, Nos. 182, 196, 199, 200, clusive, 6688 to 6700 inclusive, 6702 to 6708 inclusive,
6668 inclusive, 6671, 6673, 6674, 6675, 6676, 6679 to 6682 inGunnison County. 201, 204, 222
6711 and 6715 to 67-23 inclusive. H. Beckurts, et al., Uncle Sam Lode.
Nos. 16385, 16425, 16719 to 16722 inclusive, 16724, 16725,
LITTLE ROCK. Hugh J. Alexander, et al., Dictator Lode.
16727 to 16743 inclusive, 16745 to 16750 inclusive, 16755 John S. Hough, et al., Lilly Lode.
Nos. 7063, 8429, 8664, 10874, 11281, 11631, 15567 to 15571 in. to 16788 inclusive, 16790 to 16798 inclusive, 16800 to
clusive, 15575 to 15588 inclusive, 15590, 15591, 15593 to 16807 inclusive, 16810 10 16830 inclusive, 16832 to 16935 Lake County.
15605 inclusive, 15607, 15608, 15610, 15611, 15614, 15615, 15616, inclusive, 16937 to 16958 inclusive, 16961 to 16975 inclu
15618, 15620, 15621, 15623, 15637, 15646, 15656, 15657, 15660, sive, 16977 to 17007 inclusive, 17003 to 17058 inclusive. Roseville Alta Cons. Mg. Co., Garfield and 15669, 15670.
Nos. 16541 to 16561 inclusive, 16563 to 16593 inclusive,
16595 to 16601 inclusive, 16603 to 16651 inclusive, 16553 Roseville Lodes.
to 16702 inclusive, 16704 io 16718 inclusive. Ouray County.
Nos. 71, 88, 118, 146, 169, 176, 178, 184, 185, 193, and Desert Bessie Bascom Cons. Mg. Co., Little Chief and Little Rock Lodes.
Red Lake and Chippewa Half-breed Scrip, No. 438, Lands Patents, Nos. 7, '10, 12, and 15.
R and R. No. 208.
1873, 1877, 1898, 1903, 1905, 1916, 1932, 1935, 1980, 1982, 2000,
2008, 2028, 2030, 2031, 2033, 2137, 2150, 2186, 2189, 2194, 2207, HOMESTEAD PATENTS ISSUED. Park County.
2213, 2246, 2255, 2832, 2850, 2892, 2915, 2939, 3039, 3246, 3283,
2389, 3315, 3390, 3458, 3473, 3516, 3517, 3519, 3524, 3555, 3561, A. L. Pogue, Independence Placer.
Copp's LAND OWNER for this month reports the 3593, 3597, 3610, 3618, 3690, 3693, 3912, 4407, 4495, 4508, 4511, Pitkin County.
4513, 4514, 4516, 4521, 4523, 4527, 4533, 4538, 4539, 4549, 4550 following final numbers of Homestead Patents T. J. Oliver, et al., Little Dick Lode. 4608, 4611, 4612, 4613, 4614, 462, 4625, 4626, 4627, 4631, 4633, issued and sent to the below-named land-offices: Thos. R. Fraser, Chance Lode.
4635, 4637, 4643, 4645, 4647, 4649, 4650.
1460, 1521, 1964, 1967, 1973, 2020, 2022, 2057, 2095, 2105, 2111,
2118, 2151, 2163, 2166, 2434, 2572, 2011, 2012, 2653, 2671, 2687,
Nos, 249, 553, 922, 1147, 1221.
3329, 3334, 3349, 3380, 3403, 3409, 3423, 3464, 3466, 3468, 3481,
4297, 4298, 4302, 4303, 4315, 4322, 4328, 4329, 4330, 4334, 4335,
Watertown series, Nos. 582, 583, 590.
4372, 4374, 4375, 4377, 4378, 4392, 4395, 4399, 4400, 4402, 4411,
4414, 4419, 4424, 4425, 4429, 4437, 4443, 4444, 4445, 4452, 4453, M. M. Engleman, et al., Lulu Carroll Lode. 4455, 4459, 4460, 4461, 4464, 4466, 4469 4470, 4476, 4477, 4478,
Nos. 458, 571, 577, 578, 579, 581, 584, 585, 586, 587, 589, 593, Peter Fassbinder, Neptune Lode. 4479, 4480, 4481, 4482, 4483, 4486, 4487, 4490, 4492.
597, 600. Philip N. Nicholas, Rob Roy Lode.
2127, 2146, 2223, 2226, 2228, 2234, 2235, 2239, 2248, 2250, 2253, Nos. 2249, 3014, 3386, 4248, 4440, 4597, 4692, 4761, 4768, 4778, Wm. E. Webb, et al., Benjamin Franklin 2254, 2257, 2260, 2270, 2271; 2273, 2277, 2278, 2279, 2283, 2293, 4810, 4323, 4833, 4841, 4847, 4856, 4859, 4861, 4873, 1878, 4883
2302, 2308, 2309, 2310, 2316, 2317, 2320, 2331, 2346, 2351, 2353, 4886, 4893, 4896, 4910, 4912, 4914, 1921, 4922, 4923, 4929, 4930, Lode.
2354, 2356, 2358, 2359, 2361, 2363, 2364, 2366, 2371, 2372, 2398, 4941, 4945, 4947, 4918, 4967, 5046, 5082, 5086, 5090, 5104, 5105, Summit County.
2441, 2460 2465, 2466, 2490, 2510, 2513, 2514, 2515, 2525, 2526, 5119, 5134, 5143, 5152, 5182, 5200, 5220, 5228, 5234, 5248, 5251,
2527, 2528, 4573, 4574, 4575, 4576, 4579, 4582, 4583, 4589, 4593, 5252, 5258, 5259, 5266, 5273, 5278, 5284, 5297, 5299, 5302, 5304, F. L. Bush, Commodore Placer.
4595, 4604, 4606, 4612, 4614, 4618, 4620, 4621, 4623, 4624, 4627, 5306, 5218, 5343. Clifton Con. Mg. Co., Edwin Forrest Lode.
4629, 4630, 4631, 4635, 4636, 4638, 4639, 4641, 4647, 4618, 4655,
Hays City series, No. 70.
Detroit and Crookston series, Nos. 527, 558, 569, 570,
582, 927, 928. 936, 957, 958, 959, 960, 969, 990, 1015, 1026, 1040, 2802, 2807. J. 0. Hudnut, et al., Mammoth, Ned and
1123, 1124, 1125, 1125, 1130, 1132 to 1137 inclusive, 1139,
1140, 1143, 1144, 1148, 1150, 1152, 1153, 1154, 1157, 1158, 1159, Whale Lodes.
Nos. 704, 749, 2379, 255, 2620, 2528, 2665, 2668, 2683, 2684, 1160 1161, 1163, 1165, 1168.
Nos. 1169, 1171, 1173, 1174, 1175, 1178, 1180, 1182, 1186, 1193,
1194, 1195, 1193, 1201, 1206, 1207, 1209, 1211, 1214, 1215, 1216, WICHITA.
1218, 1220, 1223, 1224, 1226, 1227, 1230 1232, 1233. W. S. McCornick, et al., Point Lookout
No. 12254 in favor of Sarah E. Clarke.
Nos. 2229 to 2233 inclusive, 2236 to 2242 inclusive, 2244 Jefferson County.
Sioux Half-Breed Scrip No. 485, A., R. and R. No. 173. to 2248 inclusive, 2251 to 2264 inclusive, 2267, 2288, 2270, Sam'l. Neel, et al., Pilot Lode.
2272 to 2276 inclusive, 2278, 2280.
Nos. 3838, 4468 to 4477 inclusive, 4479 to 4487 inclu. 0. B. Barber, et al., Placer.
Nos. 42359 to 42371 inclusive, 42373, 42375, 42377, 42380, sive, 4489, 4490, 4491.
42383 to 42387 inclusive, 42392 to 42398 inclusive, 42400,
Nos. 79, 152, 21041, 27256, 29605, 29622, 29740, 30042, 30802- Nos. 248, 292, 320, 321, 323 to 338 inclusive.
Nog. 51, 52, 53, 367, 422 to 426 inclusive, 428 to 439 in.
clusive, 441 to 458 inclusive. 460, 462 to 465 inclusive, Nye County.
467, 469, 470, 472 to 479 inclusive, 481, 432, 484, 485.
Nos. 790, 914, 916 to 929 inclusive, 931 to 937 inclusive,
939. Salt Lake County.
WYOMING. Sam’l. Kahn, et al., Murphy Lode.
Nos. 4805, 4906, 5105, 5134, 5139, 5142, 5148, 5151, 5159, 5160, 5161, 5163, 5167,5186, 5188, 5195, 5210, 6212, 5215, 6218, 5219,
CHEYENNE. Phoenix Mg. Co. Stanley Lode. 5248, 5234, 5269, 5275.
WASHINGTON, D. C., JULY 16, 1883.
PAGE this paper.
MIXES AND MIXERALS.
Entered at the Post Office at Washington, D. C., as This paper furnishes more valuable law informa in use for the transfer of Uniter States second-class matier.
tion for less money, and is read by more land attor
neys and real estate dealers, by more homestead, registered bonds is almost identical with THIS NOTICE MARKED with a blue or red pencil indicates that your subscription expires with pre-emption, and other land claimants, and by more the one proposed for adoption by the Leg.
mine owners. engineers, and superintendents, than islature for the registry of titles. this issue, and if you wish the paper continued with. out interruption, you should remit your renewal any other publication in the United States. subscription cut once. Parties renewing their subscriptions will find it All Registers and Receivers of the U.
LAND PERSONALS. advantageous to send $1.00 for their card in the Land S. land offices and Special Agents are JUNE 15th No. of LAND OWNER gare Direciory one year.
authorized to receive subscriptions for the status of Gen. McCammon's assistants. CONTESTS.
Since then, Mr. Cooley, of Iowa, who was Editorial Xotes-A Registry of Titles-Land Per
appointed to a $2,250 clerkship, under the
late Act of Congress, has declined the apTHERE was a novel exportation at San pointment, and Judge N. S. Howe, an ex
Francisco lately. Two hundred sacks of perienced lawyer, has been promoted to it. TIeirs of Daniel Troy 2's. Southern Pacific Rail.
roud Company-Bonnett vs. Furiu... ........ 118 orange peel, valued at $1,000, were shipped Ins.ruc.ions to legis er und Receiver
READ the card of llenry N. Copp on to Havre. It was the first shipment of
front of cover. the kind from that port, and is Mary G. Peck, et al.-Searl et al. v8. Finn ......... 119 singular because the orange peel consumed
F. M. II Eaton, of Huron, Dakota, forin the United States is imported, and merly of the General Land Office, is doing
in large part is from Southern France. a fine business as land attorney and real Charles Sterers-Cronk vs. Page Livingston rx. Page-Corat E. Harpei-George
Orange peel is worth about eight cents a estate agent. Siverson-Roach is. Flemming..
121 pound. Oranges are so plentiful in France, Dy kerk rs. Olderneyer .
Spain and Italy, its well as in Florida and
A PARTY of Richmond and Danville McComb rs. Martin .......
122 stripped from the fruit in large quantities Railroad men have bought 2,000 acres of
for bitfers and marmalade, and the juice land in Orange county, Florida, and lavo
is used to make acids. It is estimated organized an association to be known as Duell rs. Ayres et al... R.H. Trnsdle
123 that 200,000 pounds of orange peel was the Kissmet Land and Improvement ComFitch rs. Clark- Andrew Korbe.... 121 imported into New York last year.
pany. The stockholders met in RichAllen B. Lemmon-Timber Depredations-Kel
mond recently and organized by electing ley, \Vecks & Co. et ul....
Sol. Haas president, and a board of direcA REGISTRY OF TITLES.
tors. The cash capital of the company mbonas M. KilC..........
Application has been made to the Leg- is $50,000, with the privilege to incieasc
islature for the incorporation of the New to $100,000. On their 2,000 acres they Circular Instructions-Petition, Anidavits and
York Title Company, an institution to be will build a large and elegant hotel, plant Forns in Requesting Survey of Islands ........ 126 organized for the purpose of insuring real orange groves, build a railroad, and conE. N. Watson... Couy vs. State of California-Miami Indiun Lands 128 estatc titles. There is no reason why a vert it generally into a Mecca for tourists Brunette et al. t 8. Jiyere.
129 company should not be authorized to do and pleasure-seeker3. United States Circuit Court, Northern District of Illinois-Hardin rs. Jordlun....
129 an insurance business in titles, guaranA Gigantic Timber Monopoly-Removal of the
teeing its patrons against loss for defects Suivexor-General's Office from Virginia City to Reno, Nev.-Removal of U. S. Land Office from in the titles it insures, but the incorpora. The Dallas correspondent of the Times. Colfax to Spokane Falls, Washington Ty.-Re. moval of ihe Office of Surveyor-General from
tion of such a company will not be sutli-Democrat thus writes on the Pullic Lands Yankton to Huron, Dakota.. Mineral Patents Issued
131 cient to protect the public from incon- of Texas. With the excepticn of that reCash Patents Issued
132 venience and expense and possible loss. served for educational purposes, the pullo Homestead Patents Issued.
At the present rate of entrance, the num. Komain of Texas is exhausted. The act PROFESSIONAL CARDE. PAGE ber of names of grantors and mortgagors of the Legislature of 1879, kuown as the Relington & Hill, Washington, D, C. Curtis & Burdett, Washington, D. C....
i entered in the indices of the Register's “ Fifty Cents Act,” wound up the busiCapt. John Mullan, San Francisco & Washington. i office in this city during the
during the next ness. It was not until 1881 and 1882 that D. II. Talbot, Sioux City, Iowa.... Elery C. Ford, Washington, D.C.
ten years will be 200,000. The oflicial speculators fully woke up to the full meanSickels & Randall, Washington, D. C.. Drummond & Bradford, Washington, D. C.
ị searchers depend upon their private in- ing of that suicidal law, and then they W.K. Mendenhall, Washington, D.C.
i dices, and the accumulation of names pitched in and levied upon wbat was left J. A. Sibbudd, Washington, D. C. Henry N. Copp, Washington, D. C...
makes the searches increasingly diflicult, by the million-acre blocks-so that when W.J. Johnston, Washington, D. C..
while the loss of the private indices, or the Legislature now sitting passed a bill Chas. & William B. King, Washington, D. C. Walter II. Smith, Washington, D. C....
their removal through a change in officers, withdrawing public lands from market, H. J. Frost, Washington, D. C....
IV might make the confusion almost hope- it would have taken the eye of a fox and Kiddle, Davis & Padgett, Washington, D. C...... IV less. The adoption of a new way of keep- the wing of a wild goose to find any not Land Directory...
PAGE ing a registry of titles—that cominonly surveyed, though it is said some may reAmerican Seitler's Guide..
Jil employed in transfers of stock, the old rest to the State for the reason that field Copp's Land Owner-Bound. Lopp's Public Land Laws.
certificate being surrendered, with a mem- notes and first payments were not inade in Copp's U. S.Mineral Lands Main & Co.. Patents.....
111 orandum of assignment endorsed, and a time. Some speculators have realized W.C. Hill, Washington. D. C...
new certificate being issued to the new enormous fortunes already, and others Preston, Kean & Co., Chicago, Ills.. Coppis American Mining Code...
iv owner-would greatly simplify the busi- who got in in time will do so after awhile General Price List
ness of the Register's Oflice. 'l'he method and after many days,
It is claimed that the company has now cient facts to authorize the action now HEIRS OF DANIEL TROY VS. SOUTHERN
no standing in the case, and that the proposed by you; but after a case has
action and motion on the part of the com- been heard and decided, and a particular PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY. pany should be dismissed.
relief granted, your office is not at liberty Party--Remittitur.—The defeated party in a The right of the company to be heard to grant any relief or direct any action
case before the Interior Department is a party as to the execution of the final decision is which you may think the party would to the case until it is closed. right to call attention to the manner in which evidently misapprehended by your office, have been entitled to upon the record if
he had applied for it. the Secretary's decision is executed by the and by the counsel for the heirs. Commissioner.
When the record is returned to your Such practice as is now proposed would Relief.–After a case has been decided by the office from this Department, with its de- lead to great confusion and uncertainty. Secretary, and a particular relief granted, cision, and direction for the execution of This Department could not know whether the Commissioner Cannot grant, any relief of such decision, it is in the
nature of a re- the action directed by its decision was would have been entitled to upon the record, mittitur in the law courts. Can there be carried out, or some other action had he applied for it.
any doubt about the right of a party, remedy substituted in its place, except by SECRETARY TELLER to Commissioner Mc Far- though defeated in the appellate tribunal, instituting inquiry in your office. In this land, June 21, 1883.
to see that the decree of that tribunal is case the Department was not asked to I have examined the proceedings had executed as therein directed? And if the modify its decision, and was in no way by your office in the case of the heirs of tribunal to which the record is remitted advised of the proposed change, until its Daniel Troy vs. Southern Pacific Railroad should attempt to execute the decree in a attention was called to it by counsel for Company, subsequent to my decision manner different from that ordered, or to the defendant. therein, referred to in your letter of the substitute another remedy in place of it, Your decision that the applicant had 25th ultimo.
would there be any doubt about the right the right to purchase the land in question On the 28th day of February, 1881, the of such party to move the superior tri- under said act, affirmed by me February heirs aforesaid made application to pur- bunal to correct the proposed wrong exe- 6th last, should be carried into effect; chase the land involved, under section 2 cution of its decree?
and your letter of March 12th, directing of the act of June 15, 1880. The de- The decisions of the appellate tribunal final certificate to issue under the homefendant, the railroad company, resisted are of no avail unless they are to be exe-stead entry of Daniel Troy, and all prothe application, claiming the land by virtue cuted as made. If the opposite party is ceedings subsequent, should be revoked. of its grant. The local officers rejected not permitted to move in such tribunal, the application, but on appeal you granted there is no one that would have that right;
BENNETT VS. FURMAN. it; and your decision in that respect was for all others would be strangers to the affirmed, on appeal to this Department, record. It would often happen that the Practice~ Appeal.-- Under Rule 93 of the Rules by decision of February 6th last, and the defeated party would suffer from a wrong
of Practice in land cases, a copy of notice of
appeal and specifications of error and arguapplication to purchase under the provis- execution of the decree.
ment are not required to be served on the opions of said act was directed to be al. In the present case it may make no dif
posite party when the appeal is taken to the lowed.
ference to the company whether the land Commissioner from the decision of the Reg You state that on February 14, 1883, in controversy passes to the heirs by vir
ister and Receiver. you transmitted a copy of my decision to tue of a purchase or under an entry made SECRETARY TELLER to Commissioner McFarthe local office (Visalia, California), and by Daniel Troy in his life time. In another land, May 24, 1883. directed that said heirs be allowed to pur- case the rights of the company, in respect You transmitted to me on August 8th chase said land under the act aforesaid; to its land grant or the right to indemnity last, in pursuance of my letter of the 2d that the next day the attorney for said for the land lost by the particular decision, of same month, under Practice Rule 83, the heirs filed an application in your office to might be affected.
papers in the case of Frank A. Bennett vs. have the tract in question patented to A party, although the judgment is Jas. C. Furman, involving certain lands in Daniel Troy (deceased), under his home- against him, has a standing in the case Sec. 24, Tp. 8, R. 42 E., La Grande, Orestead entry; and that on March 12, after and a right to be heard, until it is finally gon. a consideration of the facts, you revoked closed by an execution of the decree. It appears that Furman filed declaratory your letter of February 14th, and in. I must, therefore, decline to dismiss statement March 11, alleging settlement structed the Register and Receiver to these proceedings, upon the ground that March 9, 1881, and that Bennett filed deissue supplemental final certificate, in the the defendant has no standing in the case. claratory statement March 18, alleging name of Daniel Troy, to cover the land in From what has already been said it may settlement March 8, 1881. After due question ; that final certificate was accord- be inferred that the practice of your office publication of notice, Furman offered his ingly issued April 11th, and approved for in this case can not be approved. proof and payment on September 14, 1881, patent April 230; and that by letter of The application was to purchase the which were rejected because on the prethe latter date the attorney for said rail- land under the relief act already cited. ceding day Bennett filed an affidavit of road company requested your office to re- The party making it was represented by contest and protest against allowance of call your said letter of March 12th, and able counsel, and presumed to know the Furman's entry of the tract. In view of to require said heirs to purchase the land relief desired and to which the party was the testimony submitted at the hearing, under the act of June 15, 1880, aforesaid. entitled. The case was considered upon the local officers recommended (Novem
You further state that on May 9th you no other ground, and upon the record fur- ber 4, 1881), that the contest be dismissed, advised the attorney for said railroad nished by your office, your decision was and that Furman's entry be allowed. company, that the claim of the company affirmed, and it was adjudged that the Bennett filed an appeal therefrom, on to said land having been concluded by party was entitled to purchase under the December 3d following, and on December the decision of this Department, the ques. act aforesaid.
26th, Furman moved to dismiss the aption of the subsequent disposition of the You now direct upon the same record, peal, because copies of the notice of appeal, land as between the heirs and the Govern- that the Register and Receiver issue a specifications of error and argument were ment was one with which the company final certificate in the name of Daniel not served on him. On April 13, 1882, had nothing to do.
Troy, deceased, on his homestead entry you granted the motion, holding that such The attorney for the company having made in 1867. That was not the remedy service was required by Practice Rule 93. addressed a letter to this Department, applied for, nor was it considered by you This was erroneous. Rule 93 requires proceedings have been stayed by my di- or this Department; and the defendant service of such papers only in appeals jection until the questions thus raised had not been heard upon that question. from your decisions to this Department, could be determined.
The record in this case may disclose suffi-'and no rule requires their service on appeal from the local officers to you. (Lynch Their certificate of relocation sets forth, during the period of publication required vs. Merrifield, Copp, December, 1882.) among other things, that it is made with- by Section 2325 of the Revised Statutes,
You will, therefore, reinstate the case out waiver of any previous rights, and to amounted to a waiver of all adverse rights on Bennett's appeal, and consider the case secure all abandoned, interfering or over- which may have existed, and the law on its merits; and in view of the long de- lapping claims.
not only assumes, in such cases, that no lay in its disposition, you will give it early They, by their counsel, now admit their adverse claim exists, but," if publication attention.
probability to supply all the links neces- and attendant proceedings have been reg
sary to show by abstract that they have ular, all that might be set up by suit in INSTRUCTIONS.
title under the original location, and hence court has been adjudicated in favor of the
they claim under the relocation of Decem- applicant." Rule 35.-There is nothing obligatory in the ber 22, 1880.
Publication is notice to the world of inrule. Registers and Receivers must exercise their discretion in permitting testimony in
Your decision holds that a relocator tention, and a challenge to any and all adcontested cases to be taken elsewhere than at must show a complete and unbroken claim verse claimants to come forward and assert the local land office.
of title from the original locator, ending their rights. COMMISSIONER MCFARLAND to Register and Re-I in himself, or prove abandonment of the No adverse claim having been filed in ceiver, Watertown, Dakota, June 11, 1883. property by the original locator, or his this case, all antecedent claims may, as al
Relative to the proper construction of grantee; also that relocation, using the ready stated, be regarded as having been amended Rule 35 of Practice, you are in same name under which the original loca- abandoned, and the question therefore beformed that paragraph 1 is to be read as tion was made, coupled with the attempt comes one solely between the United if there was a comma after the word to furnish abstract of title from the origi- States and the applicants. " cases," in the first line.
nal locator and grantees, shows that appli- The proceedings under the relocation The rule contemplates that testimony cants claim as purchasers for valuable con- appear to have been regular, and have been in contested cases, as well as in hearings sideration, and therefore that the reloca- completed so far as applicants are conordered by the Commissioner, may be tion confers no new title upon them. cerned. They have tendered the purchase taken before United States Commissioner, I am unable to concur in these conclu- money, which has been accepted. Final etc., near the land, when it shall be so or- sions.
certificate of entry has issued, and I see dered. There is nothing obligatory in Generally, I see no reason why a locator no reason why patent should not be the rule. Registers and Receivers must should be called upon to furnish any facts granted as applied for under the relocaexercise their discretion in permitting tes- or data relative to a previous location upon tion of December 22, 1880. timony in contested cases to be taken the same ground, or why any inquiry If applicants hased their title solely on elsewhere than at the local land office, be- should be instituted relative to antecedent their rights as purchasers, the regulation ing governed in every instance by the matter, except upon showing of irregular- of your office to which you refer might circumstances of the case.
ity and of injury to material interests. call for consideration; but I find no rule Preferably, testimony should be taken The law applicable to adverse claims pro- or regulation, and no law, which, on the by the district land officers, and this vides how and when such showing may be facts as they appear, would operate to preshould be the course pursued whenever it made in case any rights are liable to be in- vent the issuance of patent on the location can be done without involving too much fringed.
made by the parties themselves. inconvenience and expense to the parties. In this case, applicants, by their admis- Your decision is accordingly reversed.
The purpose of the amendment to Rule sion of inability to furnish complete ab35 was to provide a different method when stract of title under the original location, great distance, or other good cause, ren- as required by your office, virtually waive
SEARL ET AL. VS. FINN. ders the alternative course advisable. all claim based upon said location, and Lode in Placer-Proof required where an applirely solely upon their relocation.
cant for a lode claim seeks to embrace a The proceedings pursuant to the reloca- portion of the surface ground already patMINES AND MINERALS.
tion appear to have been regular. None ented or applied for with a placer claim. MARY G. PECK ET AL.
of the apparently adverse interests appear- COMMISSIONER MCFARLAND to Reg. and Rec., Relocation.-An applicant for patent, who a co-ing in the abstract of title were asserted
Leadville, Colorado, June 25, 1883. (H. G. P.) owner relocated a mine in his own name, as pending publication under said relocation, This office has examined the appeals of single proprietor, is not obliged to show title nor have they been since, and no adverse George Berry and A. D. Searl, owners reback of such relocation ; but if the proceed-claim can now be filed because of the limi- spectively of the Olathe and Searl placer ings are otherwise regular, and his former tation of law. Section 2325 of the Re- claims, from your action of May 20, 1882, co-owners or other parties fail to assert an adverse claim, patent may issue in the appli- vised Statutes provides that“ if no adverse denying motions to dismiss application of cant's name.
claim shall have been filed with the Regis- Nicholas Finn for a patent for the ManSECRETARY TELLER to Commissioner McFar- ter and the Receiver of the proper land of- delle Lode. land, June 19, 1883.
fice at the expiration of the sixty days of It appears that April 15, 1882, Finn apI have considered the appeal of Mary publication, it shall be assumed that the ap- plied for a patent for 300 feet in width by G. Peck et al., from your decision of De- plicant is entitled to a patent, upon the 1,500 feet in length on the Mandelle Lode, cember 19, 1882, and February 7, 1883, payment to the proper officer of five dollars situate partly within said placer claims. holding for cancellation mineral entry No: per acre, and that no adverse claim ex- Motions to dismiss the application were 1882, upon Gold Dirt lode, Central City, ists."
filed by said Berry and Searl, and denied Colorado.
You state that the right of the claim- by you May 20th. The original location was made and re- ants asserted by the relocation has never The dismissal was asked for on the corded in 1864, since which time there ap- to the knowledge of your office been ques- ground that the land claimed by Finn was pears to have been numerous transfers of tioned. All antecedent claims may there to the extent of the greater portion therethe property, and it is alleged by appli- fore be regarded as having been abandoned, of included in said Olathe and Searl placer cants that the possessory title by virtue of and all rights which may previously have claims, and therefore the application ought said location is in them.
existed as waived. This is in accord with not to be allowed, and that there is no The abstract of title in the case fails to the views expressed in my decision of Au- such lode as claimed by Finn, and other verify this allegation. Applicants, how- gust 7, 1882, in the case of the Grampian grounds being in the nature of protest. ever, made a relocation, dated December Silver Mining Company, (Copp's L. o. for You held in denying the motions that 22, 1880, covering the same ground, and September, 1882, p. 113).
the records show that there existed prior using the same name under which the In that case it was held, in effect, that to the date of the application of either the mine was originally located.
the failure to file or assert an adverse claim Olathe or Searl placers, the claim known as the Mandelle Lode, and that, therefore, stricter to the lode and 25 feet of surface
CRONK VS. PAGE. the vein or lode so known to exist was ex. on cach side should be received, and intimate and Confidential Relations.—The mero pressly excepted from the patent for the applicant allowed to proceed under the fact of consanguinity will not invalidate a Olathe placer, and that the applicant bar- statute.
homestead entiy. As the homestead party ing filed an amended application exceptivg For reasons above stated, Mr. Finn's is not a memler of the Receiver's family nor therefrom the ground in conflict with the applications, mpon his present showing,
an employee in the land office, his entiy is Searl placer, the objection on the ground must be, and the same is hereby rejected. Comm'n McFarland to Register and Recrirer,
allowul to stand. was thereby removed.
Your decision is reversed.
Mitchell, Dak., June 21, 1883. (H.C.S.) It appears from a copy of certificate of location filed, that the Mandelle Lode was
I have considered the case, Charles S. locatell March 21, 1879, by Jolin Mcken
Cronk vs. Paul E. Page, involving II. E.
IIOMESTEADS. zie, A. A. Swan, and Thomas Guest.
No. 1927.2, made April 18th, 1882, for the The application for the Searl placer was
S. W. 4-102-00, Mitchell District. fled July 5th, and that of the Olathe July Tounsite-Occupancy.- Homcstcad aprlication this cflice February 24th last, the com
A hearing in said case was ordered by Oth, 1879. Finn claims under locations refused because homestead setter failed, for made by himself May 10th and June 11th, more than five years after adverse claimant's plaint charging that said entry is illegal 1831, and also claims through various con- entiy, to assent his alleged rights. A mere on account of intimate and confidential verances to be possessech of the claim
occupant of public land has no right thereto. relations existing between said Page and originally located by McKenzie, Swan and SECRETARY Teller to Commissioner McFar- Hiram Barber, Jr., Receiver, and that the Guest, and that they are one and the same
land, June 16, 1883.
latter acted in collusion with the former lode or claim.
I have considered the appeal of Charles in procuring said entry. Notice of conIn the case of Becker et al. rs. Sears, Stevens, from your decision of May 11. test issued March 15, and April 19, 1883,
Tri: thie IIon. Secretary of the Interior held 1882. rejecting his application of April is. as set for a hearing of the case. that Section 2333, L. S. R. S., (artes out
1882, to make homestead entry on the s. liad before W. L. Warren, Prolate Judge, from a patent to a p'acer claim all known ... 1-4 of the N. E. 1-4 of Sec: 10, Tp. 12, Davison comty, D. T.
It appears from the testimony submitlodes found therein at date of application, or the biomestead entry of Charles Jordan ted list Mr. Pace is the nephew of Tiram together with 25 feet of surface ground on
thercon. both sides as incident thereto. There is no
Barber, Jr., Receiver. That he went to
Mitchu!, Dakota, aliout the frst week in suflicient evidence before me, however,
Stevens' application shows that he setshowing that the lode in question was tled on the tract more than twenty years mother, Cynthia B. Lage, who desired
April, 1882, it seems at the instance of his really known to exist at date of the placer since, and has a house and out-buildings, liim to locate in that country. applications. Furthermore, it does not and about two acres under cultivation, and
One Thos. J. Ball. of Mitchell, had a appear that the lode claimant filed any ad. that lie did not previously assert claim to
relinquishment of Mr. Spencer's entry verse claim against either of said placer it, because more than ten years since the of said tract, and Mr. l'age, learning of applicacations, and baving failer to do so inhabitants of Gold Ilill, intending to lo.
this act, purchased said relinquisliinent within the statutory period, he must now. cate a town-site on said sertion, the ex
tirough Messis. Winsor and Metcall, the under the decision of the Honorable Secre-terior bounds of which would include his tary in the case of the Shontar Lode improvements, caused a survey for such agents of Mr. Ball, paying therefor thic
sum of six hundred and fifty dollars. (Corr's L. (., Vol. 10, 1. 18), if entitled town-site to be made, and that he had alat all, be restricted to his lode claim, and ways supposel, intil recently; that an ap: 19. 1882, aud on the same day Mr. Pago
This trade, it appears, was concluded April only '95 f'ect of surface ground cu cach plication for patent for said propose at made his entry, Mr. Winsor transacting side. town-site had lieen inade. IIe noir learns
the lusiness for him. lle has resided on But liefore application for the lode claim that no such application has been made, said land since Nay 12, 1882, and has imcan be receivel, applicant must aflirma and states that sail town of Gold Ilill has lieen almost wholly abandoned, not a tra une house one and one half stories high;
proved Uie same liy erecting thereon a tively and satisfactorily show his acquaintance withi, and the actiial existence of the sufficient number of inhabitants remaining
a frame stalle 12x36 feet, a granary 12x love and mine, and its true location within to entitle them to an entry under the 20 feet, a cow-stalle 12x20 feet. Also a the placer, and that its existence was town-site laws.
well and ice house, and forty acres of known prior to date of the placer applica
Jordan filed (eclaratory statement for ground, broken. Valued at $2,000. tions, and he must set fortli snch facts as the tract (with others) February 1, 1877,
Mr. l'age is a comparative stranger to clearly show how the existence of such anal March 3, 1880, inade homestead entry his uncle, Iliram Barker, Jr., was edulode at that time became known, and a therefor.
cated in Europe, and knows lut little of statement under cath of more conclusions A mere occupant of a tract of public his uncle from infancy up, having seen or opinions will not le sufficient to estal:- land has no right thereto. It is only when him last prior to his arrival in Mitchell, lish the existence of the lode. Applicant's he asserts claim under some law for its in the fall of 1879. affidavit must be full, clear and specific disposition, that a right can be recognizel. Mr. l'age is not a member of Mr. Barupon the points indicated. lle must also the reason assigned by Stevens for his l:cr's family, neither is he an employee in prove luis possessory right and value of failure to assert claim, is without any legal your e, nor does the evidence disclose work as in other applications, and in all force. IIe was not a claimant of record any very intimate and confidential reladition to the other proofs required 1.y law until more than five years from the date tions between them. The mere fact of and official regulations in mining applica of Jordan's pre-emption tiling, and more consanguinity is not of itself suflicient to tions, the allegations of applicant above than two years from the date of his liome. invalidate the entry, and as he has shown mentioned must be satisfactorily and fully stead entry. At cach of these dates the good faith in all particulars with respect corroborated by at least two rlisinterested land was vacant pullic land, subject to to his homestead entry, I am of the opinand credible witnesses familiar, with the whosoever might apply for it. Although ion that this case does not come within facts. Such a showing the applicant has there are equities in favor of Stevens, nis the rule laid down in the case of the State failed to make.
laches in failing to assert a claim until so of Nebraska, ts. Dorrington (Copp's L. You are instructed, howerer, that should long a time after Jordan's claim, must re- o. vol. 3, 122), and circular instructions applicant make such showing and present quire recognition of the latter's legal, as issned thereunder, and that in making such application under oath for the lode, well as equitable rights, to which the claim said entry, Page only exercised a right showing its actual location and estent by of Stevens must vield.
guaranteed him liy law. The contest is plat and ficld notes, such application re- I aflirm your decision.