Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

The pur

pelles 'or Parrhasius should go without provements, and made payments on the by purchase, and that a security given compensation to the owner of a worthless

notes. ]

thereon by her for the purchase-money tablet, if the painter had possession fairly,

2. In such case the grantee is not entitled, by will be enforced. It was so held by this

reason of her coverture, to have the sale set he says, as translated by Dr. Cooper :

aside and the purchase-money already paid court in the case of Chilton vs. Braiden's “* But if he, or any other, shall have taken refunded, though consenting to account for Administratrix, 2 Black 458, where a lien away the tablet feloniously, it is evident rents and profits, nor will "she, or her hus- for the unpaid purchase-money of land the owner may prosecute by action of

band, be allowed for permanent improve- sold to a married woman was enforced by theft."

ments erected by them.

a decree for the sale of the land. Mr. Jus3. In such case, also, in a State where, by conThe case of Nesbitt vs. St. Paul Lumber

tract, interest above the ordinary legal rate tice Grier, delivering the opinion of the Co., 21 Minn. R. 491, is directly in point may be stipulated for, such interest may be court, said: “When one person has got here. The Supreme Court of Minnesota

recovered under the vendor's lien, if agreed the estate of another, he ought not, in consays: “ The defendent claims that because

to be given in the notes for purchase-money. science, to be allowed to keep it without they (the logs) were enhanced in value by Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United paying the consideration. It is on this the labor of the original wrong-doer in

States for the Middle District of Tennessee.

principle that courts of equity proceed as cutting them, and the expense of trans- Bradley J.—This case arises on a bill between vendor and vendee. porting them to Anoka, the plaintiff is not in equity filed by G. W. Burton, the chase-money is treated as a lien on the entitled to recover the enhanced value; appellee, alleging that in February, 1872, land sold where the vendor has taken no that is, that he is not entitled to recover he sold and conveyed to America Bed separate security.” In a well-considered the full value at the time and place of con- ford, one of the appellants, wife of John case decided by the chancellor of New version." That was a case, like this, R. Bedford, the other appellant, in fee, for Jersey (Armstrong vs. Ross, 5 C. E. Green, where the defendant was the innocent her separate use, free from the control of 109) where property was sold and conpurchaser of the logs from the willful her husband, a certain tract of land in veyed to a married woman, and she and wrong-doer, and where, as in this case, the Tennessee for the consideration of $7,500, her husband executed a mortgage for the transportation of them to a market was the one-third of which was paid down, and the purchase-money, but the execution by the largest item in their value at the time of balance secured by the promissory notes wife was void because she was not priconversion by defendant; but the court of Mrs. Bedford, drawing interest at the vately examined, it was nevertheless held overruled the proposition, and affirmed a rate of ten per cent. per annum. The deed that the vendor had a lien for the purjudgment for the value at Anoka, the of conveyance specified these notes, and chase-money, and also that the mortgage, place of sale.

reserved a lien on the land for the pay- being given for the benefit of her separate To establish any other principle in such ment thereof. The notes were paid in estate, although void as a mortgage, might a case as this would be very disastrous part, but not in full, and the bill was filed be decreed a lien on such separate estate. to the interest of the public in the immense for the foreclosure and sale of the land to in the case of Willingham vs. Leake, 7 forest lands of the government. It has raise the balance due. The defendants, Baxter 453, it was held by the Supreme long been a matter of complaint that the Bedford and wife, filed a demurrer, whch Court of Tennessee that where land was depredations upon these lands are rapidly was overruled, and thereupon they filed sold and a title bond given to a married wodestroying the finest forests in the world. an answer and cross-bill, admitting the man, who gave her notes for a part of the Unlike the individual owner, who, by facts stated in the bill, and that they took purchase-money, the vendor’s lien could be fencing and vigilant attention, can protect and still had possession under the pur- enforced, although the notes might be his valuable trees, the government has no chase; and the cross-bill alleged that the void as against the vendee personally. In adequate defense against this great evil. defendants had made permanent improve the subsequent case of Jackson vs. RutIts liberality in allowing trees to be cut ments on the land to the value of $500; ledge, 3 B. J. Lea 626, decided as late as on its land for mining, agricultural, and and claimed that the sale was void be- December Term, 1879, the same court held other specified uses, has been used to cause of the coverture of the grantee, and that if a married woman buy land, partly screen the lawless depredator who de- prayed that it might be declared void, and for cash and partly on time, and accept a stroys and sells for profit.

that Burton should be decreed to refund deed of conveyance to her separate use, a To hold that when the government finds the amount paid on the purchase, together lien being retained for the unpaid instalits own property in hands but one remove with the value of the improvements, with ments, she cannot have the money which from these willful trespassers, and asserts interest, after deducting the value of the she has paid refunded merely because of its right to such property by the slow rents whilst the property was occupied by her coverture, and the lien reserved for processes of the law, the holder can set the defendants. Burton demurred to the the payment of the purchase-money may up a claim for the value which has been cross-bill, and on final hearing the court be enforced in equity. This case was added to the property by the guilty party sustained this demurrer and made a de nearly parallel to the present. A deed in the act of cutting down the trees and cree for the foreclosure and sale of the was executed to the married woman for removing the timber, is to give encourage property as prayed in the original bill, but her sole and separate use, retaining a lien ment and reward to the wrong-doer, by declared that the complainant was not en- on the land for the payment of the notes providing a safe market for what he has titled to a personal judgment against given for the purchase-money, and the stolen, and compensation for the labor he America Bedford. From this decree the grantee and her husband went into poshas been compelled to do to make his defendants have appealed.

session. A cross-bill was filed, as in the theft effectual and profitable.

The decree is sought to be reversed on present case, seeking to set aside the conWe concur with the circuit judge in two grounds: first, because the sale to tract as void, and for a return of the money this case, and the judgment of the America Bedford was void by reason of paid and the value of permanent improveCircuit Court is affirmed. AFFIRMED. her coverture, and onght to be declared ments. A decree for the sale of the land

void and the money paid by her decreed to satisfy the unpaid purchase-money was AMERICA C. AND John R. BEDFORD VS.

to be refunded; secondly, because the de- made by the chancellor, but no personal BURTON.

cree gives ten per cent. interest on the decree against the parties. This decree 1. Where a married woman, with the consent notes, a rate of interest which is not al- was affirmed by the Supreme Court in an of her husband, buys land and gives her lowed by the law unless there is a special elaborate judgment, in which the authoripromissory notes for part of the purchase contract therefor, the legal rate being only ties on the subject are fully reviewed. The money, and a lien is reserved in the deed of six per cent.; and a feme-covert is incapa- court concludes the examination by sayconveyance for the payment of the notes, ble of making such special contract. ing: “If the conveyance be to the sole such lien may be enforced against the land, though the notes bevoid as against the

The authorities are numerous and con- and separate use of the married woman, woman personally. [The husband and wife clusive to the effect that a feme-covert there seems to be no difficulty in treating went into possession, made permanent im-'may, with her husband's consent, take land'a debt contracted in the purchase as bind

IN BANC.

[ocr errors]

ing on the property, although not person- upon her personally. Nevertheless, as it is land in controversy. If he had, it would ally obligatory on the feme, because where a rate that may be lawfully stipulated for, be equivalent to a patent, and an action she takes possession under the conveyance if it is stipulated for, and is made part of of ejectment might be maintained upon it the debt is contracted for the benefit of the consideration for which a lien is re- against any one in possession under a her separate estate.” Again : “Her inca- tained on the land, it is as much secured subsequently acquired title. As it is, the pacity to execute valid notes, if we treat by the lien as the principal is.

defendants are in possession, claiming the purchase notes as void on that ground We see no error in the decree, and it is title under United States patents, which and because not expressly made obliga- therefore affirmed.

purport to convey the entire pranises. tory on her separate estate, would not af

And the question is, can the plaintiff fect the vendor's right to subject the land CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT. maintain this action upon the title which to the satisfaction of the unpaid purchase

he has acquired from the State, without money by virtue of the vendor's equity

showing that the land has been certified and of the lien reserved. By the delivery

[Filed March 23, 1883.] WRIGHT

over to the State as swamp and overand acceptance of the deed of conveyance,

No. 7,444.

flowed ? Counsel for appellant insist that the contract was executed and the title ROSEBERRY.

although said land has never been certified vested in her. She takes the title subject The defendants are in possession of the over to the State according to the reto the charge created by the terms of the demanded premises, and hold United quirement of said act of Congress, the deed. (Trezevant vs. Bettis, 1 Leg. Rep. States patents for the same. But it is title to said land, nevertheless, became 48; Lee vs. Newman, 1 Memph. L. J. 139; claimed on behalf of the plaintiff that be- vested in the State. If that be so, the Eskridge vs. Eskridge, 51 Miss. 522.) Un- fore defendants acquired any right or title clause which requires the Commissioner der such circumstances the married woman to said land the title to it had passed out to certify over to the State as swamp and is not entitled to have the cash payment of the United States and become vested overflowed all the lands represented as refunded. In making the payment, as we in the State of California. The grounds such, upon such approved plats, within one have seen, she exercised a right which the of this claim as stated by one of the ap-year from the passage of said act, or law concedes. * * * All she can claim pellant's counsel are as follows: "That on within one year from the return and apis exemption from personal liability.” July 1, 1862, he (plaintiff) acquired the proval of such township plats, is super

These cases, decided by the highest title of the State to the land in contro- fluous. The act of September 28, 1850, court of Tennessee, where the land lies versy ; that the State had, prior to July contains a clause somewhat similar to and where the transaction took place, are 23, 1866, selected this land as swamp land, this, and the construction which was given of stringent authority, and they accord and had disposed of the same to pur- to it by the Supreme Court of the United with our own views of the law.

chasers in good faith under her laws; that States in French vs. Fyan (93 U. S., 169), It should be added that, by the statute due notice had been given to the United seems to us to militate against the posilaw of Tennessee, “ married women over States Land Department of this selection ;tion which appellant's counsel seek to the age of twenty-one years, owning the that within the time required by the act maintain in this case. That act made it fee or other legal or equitable interest or of Congress of March 12, 1860, and before the duty of the Secretary of the Interior, estate in real estate, shall have the same 1866, the State had segregated these lands as soon as practicable after its passage, to powers of disposition, by will, deed, or as swamp; and that, under due and regu- make out an accurate list and plats of the otherwise, as are possessed by femes-sole lar proceedings had under the fourth sec- land described in said act, and to transmit or unmarried women.” (Code of Tennes- tion of the act of 1866, this segregation the same to the Governor of the State, see, Sec. 2486.) This provision would was approved by the United States Land and at his request to cause a patent to seem to be sufficient to confer upon a Department, and the tracts here claimed issue to it, and that thereupon the fee married woman purchasing land to her designated swamp on the United States simple to said lands should vest in the use power to execute a mortgage plat of the township.”

State. In French vs. Fyan, supra, the upon the land to secure the purchase- The clause of the fourth section of the Court held that the issuance of a patent money, binding at least upon the land, act of 1866 to which reference is made to the State concluded the question of the if not creating any personal obligation reads as follows:

character of the land, and that parol eviagainst her.

“That in all cases where township sur-dence to prove that it was not swamp and But the present case is a stronger one veys have been made or shall hereafter be overflowed was, in an action at law, inadthan that of a mortgage. The deed by made under authority of the United States, missible. That the law devolved upon which she holds the property is qualified and the plats thereof approved, it shall be the Secretary “ the duty, and conferred on by expressly retaining a lien for the pay- the duty of the Commissioner of the him the power, of determining what lands ment of the purchase-money. The lien General Land Office to certify over to the were of the description granted by that goes with the estate, and affects it in a state of California as swamp and over- act, and made his office the Tribunal whose manner similar to a condition. It is, in- flowed all the lands represented as such, decision on that subject was controlling.” deed, in the nature of a condition im- upon such approved plats, within one year In Johnson us. Towsley (13 Wall., 72), pressed upon the estate itself. It makes from the passage of this act, or within the same Court said, “ that when the law the deed say in effect: “I convey to you one year from the return and approval of has confided to a special tribunal the authe land, but only upon the condition that such township plats.

thority to hear and determine certain you pay the notes given for purchase- “The Commissioner shall direct the matters arising in the course of its duties, money ; if they are not paid, I am to hold United States Surveyor-General for the the decision of that tribunal, within the it as security.

State of California to examine the segre- scope of its authority, is conclusive upon This peculiar character of the lien seems gation maps and surveys of the swamp all others.” to be a good answer to the second ground and overflowed lands made by said State ; Section 4 of the act of July 23, 1866, for reversal—the reservation of interest and where he shall find them to conform makes it the duty of the Commissioner in at the rate of ten per cent. per annum on to the system of surveys adopted by the certain specified cases to certify lands the notes. Ten per cent. is not an unlaw- United States, he shall construct and ap- over to the State. And it seems to be left ful rate of interest in Tennessee. It may prove township plats accordingly, and to him to decide in each case whether or be reserved if the parties so agree. If forward to the General Land Office for not it is a proper one for the exercise of they make no agreement, the law gives six. approval."

The most that can be claimed The agreement to pay ten per cent. in this It is not claimed that “the Commis- on behalf of appellant is that the Comcase may not be binding on the wife per- sioner of the General Land Office has missioner has not performed his duty in sonally, but it is not binding on the same ever certified over to the State of Califor- this case. The law makes it the duty of ground that the principal is not binding'nia as swamp and over flowed," any of the the Commissioner to certify over such

own

that power.

COLORADO.

lands within a specified period, but does may be adduced by the respective parties,

Placer County. not provide that in the event of his failing and thereupon to render judgment upon

Wm. Muir, Placer. to, the titles to such lands shall vest in the the whole case. The respective appellants

San Luis Obispo County. State. And we are unable to find any- in said actions severally to recover costs

David Speyer, Primera Chrome Mine.

Trinity County. thing in said Section 4 which impresses on the appeal.”

Henry Junkans et al., Rail Road Placer. us as indicating that such was the inten- The Court did find " that at the time of

John Mc Murry et al., Placer. tion of Congress.

the commencement of this suit the plain- New River Hydraulic Mg. Co., Martinsville But it is claimed on behalf of appellant tiff was the owner, and entitled to the Gold Placer.

Jacob Paulsen et al., Placer. that said Section 4 must be read in con- possession of the south half of the northnection with Section 1 of the same act, east quarter of section thirty-six, in suit,

Boulder County. which confirms to the State, lands selected which was unlawfully withheld from him

Cornelia C. Munsen et al., Revenue Lode. by her in part satisfaction of any grant, by defendant Roseberry ; and of the east

Chaffee County. and under her laws disposed of to pur-half of the northeast quarter of section Mary J. Riggins et al., Maramac Lode. chasers in good faith. twenty-five (containing eighty acres),

Clear Creek County.

J. Robt. Fisher et al., Jewel Lode. In Sutton vs. Fassett (51 Cal., 12), the which was withheld by defendant Sim

Geo. W. Hall, Treasury Vault Lode. Court said : “ The first section of that act mons; and of the northwest quarter of

Rebecca Haywood, Pythagoras Lode. does not relate to lands which had been the southeast quarter of section twenty- L. E. Park et al., Standard Lode. segregated by the State as swamp and four, which was withheld from him by Fra Strausser, Dunbarton Lode. overflowed lands. The only section which defendant Powell; and that plaintiff is

Custer County, purports to grant to the State—or in other damaged by defendant Roseberry in the Game Ridge Cons. Mg. Co., Ditto and Green

Silver Lodes. words to confirm such segregation—is the sum of $150, by defendant Simmons in the

Richard Irwin, Melrose Lode. fourth section.” And that appears to us sum of $150, and by defendant Powell in

Jennie H. Sours, Silver Rouble Lode. to be a reasonable construction of the lan- the sum of $75."

Dolores County, guage of said first section. It only ap- In addition to the lands described in J. M. Acker et al., Pigeon Lode. plies to selections made of any portion of this finding, the plaintiff in his complaint

Jos. Meredith et al., Grand Duke Lode. the public domain“ in part satisfaction of alleged that he was the owner of the lands

Santa Clara Mg. Co., Santa Clara Lode.

Wabash and Democrat Cons. Mg. Co., Waany grant made to said State by any act described in the remittitur. On the last bash Lode. of Congress.” This would seem to have trial the Court set aside its former find

Gunnison County. reference to grants of specific quantities, ings, and found that the plaintiff was not Geo. N. Easum et al., Sylvan Dell Lode. and not to a grant of an indefinite quan- and never bad been the owner, or entitled Galena Gulch Mg. and S. M. Co., Narrow tity. There would be no propriety in say- to the possession of all or any part of Gauge and North Star Lodes and Mill Site.

Hinsdale County. ing that the State accepted any number of the lands described in the complaint, and

Engineer Mountain S. Mg. & Smelting Co., acres of swamp land in part satisfaction entered judgment in favor of the defend-Adelia Lode. of the grant of all the swamp land in the ants. In doing so, appellant's counsel

Lake County. State. But in the cases of grants for insist that the Court did not follow the

Wm. P. Dewey et al., Small Hope Lode.

Frank Morrison et al., Gildersleeve Lode. school and improvement purposes where directions of this Court, which were in

Geo. H. Thacher, Jr., Illinois Lode. the quantities are limited and defined, effect that the Court below should find, in

J. B. Weston et al., Old Mariner Lode. deductions could be made, and it is addition to wbat it had already found,

Ouray County. expressly provided in said first section, whether the plaintiff was the owner or John W. Bailey et al., Aztec Lode. " That the State of California shall not entitled to the possession of the lands Quray Union Mg. Co., Monitor and Standard receive under this act a greater quantity described in said remittitur. This might Lodes.

Theron Stevens et al., Great Western Lode. of land for school or improvement pur- be so, if this Court had not reversed the

Windham S. Mg. and Smelting Co., Olympia poses than she is entitled to by law.” judgment of the Court below, and directed Lode. We therefore conclude that the title to it to render a judgment upon the whole

Pitkin County. the demanded premises has never vested case. We think that the order and direc- Jas. Lyons et al., Iowa Chief Lode. in the State, and that the State could not tions of this Court, taken as a whole,

Saguache County. convey a title to the appellant upon which amount to a reversal of the former judg

Roscoe G. Jordan et. al., Pelican Lode. he could maintain an action of ejectment ment, and an order for a new trial.

Plattsburgh Mining and Milling Co., Governor against persons in possession of said There were some exceptions taken to Seymour Lode and M. S.

San Juan County. premises under patents from the United the rulings of the Court during the trial, Colorado Mg. and Land Co., McIntire Lode. States,

but we are unable to discover any error for I. X. L. Tunnel Co., Toledo Lode. On the former appeal a remittitur issued which the judgment and order appealed C. Monjeau et al., Kansas and Romantic out of this court, containing the following from should be reversed.

Lodes.

Summit County. order and directions :

Judgment and order affirmed.

Wm. J. Lusher, Placer. " It appearing that the Court below has

SHARPSTEIN, J.

Israel May et al., Summit Lode. failed to find upon material issues made We concur: Thornton, J., McKinstry, Robert Morrison et al., Little Alice Lode. by the pleadings, to wit: Whether or not J., Ross, J., McKee, J., Myrick, J.

Fred. W. Rose et al., Selma Lode.

Robert G. Withers et al., Rocketts Lode. the plaintiff is the owner or entitled to the

Rudolph Wurlitzer, Girard, and Rndolph possession of the north half of the north

MINERAL PATENTS ISSUED. Lodes and M. S. tast quarter of section thirty-six, the southeast quarter of section twenty-five, issued for the following mining claims : Since our last report, patents have been

Lawrence County. and the east half of the southeast quarter

John T. Gilmer, Placer. of section twenty-four of the lands in suit:

ARIZONA.
Cochise County.

Beaver Head County.
"Whereupon it is now considered, or-
Arizona May Mg. Co., May Lode.

Athol F. Wright et al., Placer. dered, adjudged and decreed by the Court A. Robertson et al., Alps Lode.

Lewis and Clark County. here that the judgment of the District San Pedro Mg. Co., Survey Lode.

Nathan S. Vestel et al., Last Hope Lode. Court of the Sixth Judicial District, in

Yavapai County.

Silver Bou County. and for the county of Yolo, in the above- Dosoris Mg. Co., Buzzard, Dosoris and Raven Clayton Ramsdell, Little Annie Lode. entitled cause, be and the same is hereby Lodes, and Three Mill Sites.

Robt. McMinn, Ringgold Lode.
Yuma County.

Patrick H. Meagher et al., Malone Lode. reversed, and the cause remanded with

Black Rock and Pacific Co., Black Rock Lode. directions to the Court below to find upon

Eureka County. the foregoing issues, from the evidence

Amador County.

Kit Carson Cons. Mg. Co., Young Mabel already taken and such further evidence as Jeremiah Bliss, Kellogg Placer Mine.

Lode.

DAKOTA.

MONTANA.

NEVADA,

CALIFORNIA.

GRAND FORKS.

WICHITA.

D. J. J. McLaughlin, Black Cat Lode.

MINNESOTA. Richmond Mg. Co. of Nevada, Rearguard

DULUTH.

Nos. 148, 420, 444, 450, 476, 483, 510, 513, 523, 562, 615, 653, Lode and M. S.

Nos. 818, 820, 1023, 1095, 1096, 1097, 1098.

711, 750, 771, 781, 801, 821, 824, 839, 846, 847, 905, 936, 940, 986,

1053, 1061, 1081, 1144, 1168, 1206, 1232, 1234, 1253, 1257, 1259, Nye County.

TAYLOR'S FALLS.

1311, 1317, 1340, 1375, 1404, 1437, 1463. 1465, 1483, 1499, 1501, Geo, E. Crowell, Lodi South Lode.

Nos. 1117, 1827, 1833, 1839, 1847, 1861, 1868, 1869, 1871 to 1514, 1556, 1592, 1597, 1621, 1659, 1670, 1734, 1737, 1738 1740, Ferd. S. Van Zandt, Cadiz, Potosi, Silver 1879 inclusive, 1881, 1883, 1886 to 1890 inclusive, 1893 to 1746, 1757, 1765, 1771, 1773, 1782 1784, 1791, 1794, 1797, 1798

1899 inclusive, 1901 to 1904 inclusive, 1908, 1910 to 1914 1800, 1801, 1803, 1805, 1806, 1809, 1826, 1828, 1844, 1847, 1853, Crown and Silver Palace Lodes.

inclusive, 1917, 1918, 1919, 1920, 1923, 1924, 1925, 1926 and 1869, 1874, 1875, 1876, 1877, 18821884, 1885, 1892, 1894 1900, White Pine County. 1928.

1915, 1925, 1938, 2028, 2029 2034, 2042, 2064, 2079, 2084, 2088, WORTHINGTON,

2089, 2090, 2098, 2100, 2101, 2105, 2110, 2112 2118, 2119, 2125, Martin White Mg. Co., Juno and Merrill Lodes.

Nos. 727, 2981, 3122, 3126, 3268, 3319, 3337, 3343, 3399, 3489, 12129, 2132, 2114, 2150, 2151, 2157, 2162, 2164, 2172 2175, 2178,

3924, 4010, 6179, 6182, 6193, 6195, '6200, 6204, 6205, 6206, 6208, 2150, 2182 2186, 2187, 2192, 2225, 2233, 2237, 2240, 2241, 2243, UTAH.

6209, 6210, 6212, 6213, 6214, 6215, 6216, 6218 to 6223 inclusive, 2259, 2269, 2272, 2276, 2282, 2301, 2304, 2305, 2312 to 2315 in Beaver County

6225, 6232, 6252, 6255, 6256, 6263, 6276, 6281, 6284, 6285, 6289, clusive, 2319, 2323, 2325, 2329, 2333, 2336, 2337, 2342, 2343, 6300, 6307 and 6320, 6429, 6130, 6431, 6434, 6135, 6436, 6138.6439,

2344, 2349, 2350, 2352, 3268, 3374, 3405, 3437, 3552, 3557, 3717, Utah Southern S. Mg. Co., Antwerp Lode.

6441 to 6447 inclusive, 6449 to 6455 inclusive, 6457, 6458. 3905, 3907, 3916, 3923, 3925, 3927, 39:28, 3931, 3932, 3942 3945, Piute County.

6461, 6462, 6463, 6465 to 6475 inclusive, 6477, 6478, 6479, 6481 3947, 3956 to 3969 inclusive, 3961, 39962, 3963, 3976, 3979, 3984, Samuel Holderman et al., Crown Point and 6350 to 6357 inclusive, 6369 to 6367 inclusive, 6369, 6370 to sive: 1022, 4034, 4039, 4042, 4045, 4047, 4049, 4050, 4055. 4060 to

and 6482, 6327. 6330, 6332, 6340, 6342 to 6346 inclusive, 6348, 3987 to 3990 inclusive, 3998, 4004, 4012. 4014 to 4017 inclu? Clyde Lodes. 6377 inclusive, 6379 to 6385 inclusive, 6387, 6389, 6390, 6392,

4064 inclusive, 4066, 4068, 4071, 4076, 4077, 4078, 4080, 4081, Summit County.

6393, 6394, 6395, 6397 to 6401 inclusive 6403 to 6107 inclu: 4082, 4086, 4087, 4091, 4093, 4094, 4097, 4102, 4103, 4105, 4110, John J. Daly, Daly and Silver Cliff Lodes. sive, 6409. 6410, 6411, 6413,6414 to 6421 inclusive, 6423, 6424,

4111, 4112, 4116, 4117, 4118, 4122, 4123, 4138 to 4141 inclusive, 6426, 6427,

4143, 4145, 4146, 4151, 4152, 4154, 4156, 4160, 4162, 4164, 4165, MISSOURI.

4166, 4173, 4174, 4175 to 4179 inclusive. 4184 to 4187 incluTooele County.

SPRINGFIELD,

sive, 4200, 4201, 4202, 4204, 4205, 4207, 4209, 4213, 4215, 4220, Fred. Auerbach, Hecla Lode.

4222, 4225, 4228, 4231, 4235, 4236, 4239, 4241, 4242, 4245, 4247, Nos. 4016, 4398, 4446 to 4452 inclusive, 4451, 4455, 4457 to 4248, 4249, 4272, 4253, 4254, 4258, 4262, 4271, 4272, 273, 4277, 4467 inclusive.

4278, 4279, 1288, 4293, 4295, 4298, 4300, 4301, 4304, 4306, 4308, MONTANA.

4311, 4312, 4316, 4319, 4320, 4325, 4326, 4329, 4336, 4344, 4348, HOMESTEAD PATENTS ISSUED.

MILES CITY.

4350, 4352, 4354, 4356, 4359, 4361, 4363, 4368, 4375, 4379, 4385, Copp's LAND OWNER for this month reports the Nos. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24.

4386, 4395, 4406, 4411, 4421, 4430, 4437, 4444, 4450, 4451, 4458,

NEBRASKA. following final numbers of Homestead Patents

4461, 4462, 4471, 4485, 4486. 4487, 4488, 4497, 4499, 4503, 507,

4510, 4511, 4513, 4514, 4515, 4518, 4526, 4537, 4542, 4543, 4545,

BLOOMINGTON. issued and sent to the below-named land-offices :

4546, 4548, 4549, 4550, 4551, 4552, 4553, 4556, 4560, 4561, 4562
Nos. 3356, 3360, 3538, 3569, 3575, 3594, 3598, 3667, 3679, 3681, 4565, 4566, 4567.
ALABAMA.
3685, 3686, 3691, 3694, 3696, 3705, 3707, 3712, 3714, 3719, 3730,

HCROX.
3740, 3746, 3751, 3756, 3759, 3761, 3763, 3768, 3770, 3772, 3773,
HUNTSVILLE.

Watertown Series, Nos. 2374, 2414, 2416, 2431, 2432, 2454, 3774, 3776, 3777, 3779, 3780, 3781, 3782, 3784 and 3785, 3787 to 2488, 2490, 2515, 2516, 2517, 2518, 2521, 2563, 2577, 2585, 2587. Nos. 257, 343, 493, 505, 611, 628, 658, 678, 945, 956, 973, 1051, 3797 inclusive, 3800, 3801, 3803, 3804, 3806, 3807, 3810 and 1087, 1413, 1454 and 1459.

WATERTOWN. 3812. No. 914 in favor of Silas P. Dodds.

Nos. 2389, 2391, 2421, 2438, 2445, 2461, 2510, 2512, 2534, 3536,
LINCOLX.

2537, 2586, 2593, 2597, 2606, 2610.
MONTGOMERY.
Nos. 1604, 6085, 8906, 10545 to 10550 inclusive, 10552,

KANSAS.
Nos. 1204, 1354, 1356, 2431, 2571, 2574, 2579, 2580, 2581, 2600, 10556, 10558, 10564 to 10571 inclusive. 10576, 10577, 10578,

INDEPENDENCE. 2610, 2611, 2015, 2017, 2622, 2623, 2624, 2626, 2630, 2632, 2636, 10579, 10581, 10585 to 10589 inclusive, 10591 to 10595 inclu2639 to 2542 inclusive, 259, 2665, 266, 2667, 2670 to 2673 sive., 10599, 10601, 10613, 10605, 10607 10608,20609, 10610, 8348, 8400, 8403, 8448, 8464, 8465, 8467, 8476, 8484, 8485, 8491,

Nos. 8048, 8071, 8077, 8111, 8167, 8242, 8246, 8252, 8263, 8319, inclusive, 2676 to 2681 inclusive, 2683, 2685, 2689, 2694, 10612, 10613, 10615, 10616, 10617, 10619 to 10623 inclusive 8494, 8499, 8504, 8506, 8507, 8512, 8521, 8528, 8531, 8536, 8642 2698, 2704, 276, 2707, 2708, 2710, 2712, 2713, 2714, 2716, 2719 to 10625, 10626, 10627, 10630 to 10633 inclusive, 10635 and 8543, 8545, 8549, 8557, 8562, 8578, 8587, 8589, 8591, 8592, 8610, 2725 inclusive, 2729, 2730, 2732 to 2735 inclusive, 2737, 2740 10637. to 2743 inclusive, 2749, 2751 to 2755 inclusive, 2757 to 2762

NELIGH.

8613, 8622, 8627, 8633, 8635. Osage Trust Lands. inclusive, 2764, 2765, 2770 to 2774 inclusive, 2776, 2778, Nos. 4305, 4309, 4312, 4215, 4320, 4322, 4328, 4329, 4340, 4353, 2779, 2781, 276, 2787, 2788, 2791, 2795, 2800 to 2805 inclusive, 1356, 4357, 4359, 4360, 1361, 4366, 4369, 4371, 4372, 4373, 4375, 995, 998, 1006 to 1011 inclusive, 1013 to 1017 inclusive,

Nos. 838, 925 to 930 inclusive, 932 to 940 inclusive. 984, 2807, 2008, 2809, 2811 to 2832 inclusive.

4378, 4383. 4385, 4386, 4388, 4389, 4390, 4391, 4393 and 4394.
ARKANSAS.
West Point and Norfolk Series, Nos. 706, 1633, 2737, 1919, 1020, 1021, 1030, 2034, 1179, 1198, 1201, 1202, 1206, 1:234.

1236.
2933, 3298, 4028, 4039, 4157, 4185, 4187, 4192, 4221, 4251, 4254,
CAMDEN.
4255, 4260, 4269, 4284 and 4291.

MINNESOTA.
Nos. 210. 1438, 1527, 2101, 2175, 2231, 2364, 2680, 2773, 2789,

OREGON

CROOKSTON. 2791, 2844, 2845, 2847, 2848, 2850 to 2858 inclusive, 2860 to

ROSEBURG.

Nos. 1374, 1638, 1753, 1781, 1852, 1944, 1995, 1997, 1998, 2003, 2878 inclusive, and 2880. No. 1210, application No. 2469.

Nos. 824, 1468, 1491, 1543 to 1577 inclusive, 1579 and 2004, 2005, 2009, 2011, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2022 2024, 2030, 2034, 1580.

2043, 2044, 2045, 2052, 2001, 2063, 2067, 2008, 2069, 2074, 2080,

2084, 2085, 2088, 2092, 20996, 2098, 2099, 2100, 2107, 2010, 2011, COLORADO.

2114, 2117, 2118, 2120, 21:21, 2123, 2125, 2128, 2130, 2131. No. 1643 CASH PATENTS ISSUED.

ST. CLOUD.
No. 1558, application Nos. 3498 and 4032.

No. 8825, in favor of Belle Rosser.
Copp's Land OWNER for this month reports

TRACY.
LAKE CITY.
No. 4.

the issuance of patents on the Cash Entries Winona, New Ulm and Tracy Series, Nos. 1731, 7533,
DAKOTA.
numbered below, which patents have been sent 7540, 7545, 7692, 7706, 7806, 7807, 7808, 7810, 7812, 7816, 7821,

7822, 7828, 7839, 7842, 7843, 7846. to the below-named land-offices .

WORTHINGTON,
Watertown Series, No. 520.

ARKANSAS.
MITCHELL,

Nos. 8287, 8296, 8510, 8529, 8553, 8559, 8560, 8562, 8563, 866,
DARDANELLE.

8570, 8573, 8575, 8684, 8590, 8593, 8605.
Springfield Series, Nos. 202, 205, 357.
Nos. 7875, 7880, 7882, 7897, 7898, 7899, 7900, 7903 to 7907

MONTANA.
WATERTOWN.

inclusive, 7910 to 7916 inclusive, 7917, 7918, 7919, 7931, Mitchell Series, Nos. 3771 and 3903.

7937, 7939. Nos. 440, 492, 530, 534, 536, 544, 553, 563, 570, 572, 573, 580

CALIFORNIA.

Nos, 49, 74, 82, 83, 85, 86, 92, 93, 100. and 589.

HUMBOLDT.

NEBRASKA.
YANKTON.
Nos. 4638, 4718, 4721 to 4724 inclusive, 4727, 4730, 4731,

NIOBRARA.
Nos. 1044, 1068, 1792, 1849, 1873, 1880, 1889, 1924, 1929, 1953, 4732, 4734, 4736, 4747, 4749, 4752, 4790, 4791, 4794, 4798, 4799,

Dakota City Series, Nos. 1877 and 1878, in favor of 1954, 1955, 1959 to 1963 inclusive, 1965, 1967, 1970, 1971, 1973, 1802, 4803, 4804, 4806, 4809, 4813, 4814, 4816, 4817, 4818, 4820, Caroline C. Thayer for S. W.94 Sec. 1, Town. 29, Range 1974, 1976, 1978 to 1981 inclusive, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1988, 4821, 4822, 4824, 4825, 4826, 4828, 4842, 4845, 4846, 4851.

3 E, and Sec. 7, Town. 26, Range 3 E. 1991 and 1993.

SAN FRANCISCO.

OREGON.
FLORIDA.

Nos. 8178, 8285, 8300, 8363, 8365, 8366, 8368, 8369, 8373, 8374,
GAINESVILLE,

8379, 8380, 8382, 8383, 8385, 8386, 8394, 8395, 8403, 8405, 8410, Nos. 798, 1397, 1585, 1636, 1732, 2121, 2156, 2175, 276, 2178, 8568, 8570 to 8575 inclusive, 8577, 8573, 8579, 8581, 8682, 8583, 1184, 1185, 1186. 8111, 8440, 8441, 8142, 8450, 8457, 8517, 8527, 8565, 8566, 8567, Nos. 867, 1140, 1142, 1143, 1144, 1156, 1157, 1158, 1167, 1168,

OREGON CITY. sive, 219, 2201, 2203 to 2210

inclusive. 2214, 2215, 2219, 2220, 8585, 8588, 8591, 8605, 8606, 8608, 8612, 8613, 8616, 8621, 8627, 2222, 2223, 2225, 2226, 2228, 2230, 2231 and 2232.

Nos. 1803, 1841, 1885.
KANSAS.

WASHINGTON TERRITORY.
KIRWIN
No. 683, Townsite of Callehans.

COLFAX.
Nos, 377, 3259, 3326, 3745, 4370, 4444, 4578, 4622, 4630, 4633,
4643, 4644, 4664, 4679, 4691, 4713, 4722, 4963, 4970, 1984, 1991,

STOCKTON.

Nos. 10, 200, 286, 508, 607, 625, 614, 649, 655, 815, 866, 868, 5015, 5085, 5103, 5113, 5123, 5124, 5139, 5166, 5169, 5173, 5177, Nos. 4245, 7747, 7749, 7750, 7752, 7753, 7754, 7758 to 7762 895, 899, 900, 903, 904, 910, 912, 922, 925, 930, 932, 936. 5180, 5181, 5190, 5193 to 5:207 inclusive, 5209, 5212 to 5216 inclusive, 7781, 7788, 7791, 7817, 7821, 7837, 7842. inclusive, 5218, 5219, 5222, 5223, 5224, 5225, 5227, 5229 to 5233 Nos. 7636, 7658, 7661, 7711, 7714 to 7719 inclusive, 7721, Nos. 1119, 1329, 1470, 1586, 1599, 1600, 1603, 1631, 1679, 1728 inclusive, 5235 to 5239 inclusive. 5241, 5243 to 5247 inclu- 7722, 7725, 7726, 7728, 7729, 7730, 7732, 7733, 7734, 7739, 7740, 1814, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1975, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1987, 1988, 1991, sive, 5253, 5254, 5255, 5257, 5260, 5261, 5262, 5265, 5267, 5268, 7741, 7745, 7746.

1992, 1994, 1995, 1996, 2000, 2003, 2004, 2005. 5270, 5272, 5274, 5275, 5276, 5277, 5282, 5283, 5286, 5287, 5288.

COLORADO.

WISCONSIN. 5290, 5291, 5293, 5294, 5295, 5296, 5298, 5300, 5301, 5303, 5307,

DEL NORTE.

BAYFIELD. 5,309, 5310, 5311, 5312, 5314 to 5:217 inclusive, 5319 to 5323

Nos. 175, 217, 220, 229, 328, 352, 357, 365, 371, 374, 375, 376, inclusive, 5325, 5326, 5327, 5329, 5330, 5331, 5333 to 5338 in- 400, 401, 405, 409, 410, 111, 412, 415, 416, 417, 418, 470, 516, 544, 3305, to 3307 to 3312 inclusive. 3315, 3324, 3325, 232

Nos. 2862, 2889, 3065, 3067, 3223, 3227, 3228, 3294, 3303, 3304, clusive, 5341, 5342 and 5344. 552.

3338 to 3342 inclusive, 3344 to 3348 inclusive, 3352 to 3358 TOPEKA. Nos. 2684, 2687, 2696, 2697, 2702, 2704, 2709, 2710, 2712, 2713,

inclusive, 3360 to 3364 inclusive. 3366, 3368 to 3371 inclu

Nos. 1943, 1951, 2265, 2459, 2481, 2516. 2714 and 2715.

sive, 3374 to 3382 inclusive, 3385, 3387, 3388, 3390 to 3393 WA KEENEY.

DAKOTA

inclusive, 3395 to 3398 inclusive, 3400 to 3408 inclusive. Nos. 742, 751, 817, 819, 820, 825, 830, 833 to 837 inclusive,

WACSAU. 842, 843, 846, 853, 857, 859, 864, 866, 873, 874, 876, 877, 878, 881,

Watertown, Series, Nos. 2393, 2402, 2404, 2409, 2413, 2430, Nos. 15614, 15663, 16066, 16077, 16239, 26240, 16241, 16242, 882 884, 885, 886, 887, 889, 890, 891, 893, 894, 896, 899, 901, 902 2459, 2460, 2463, 2484, 2491, 2497, 2502, 2506, 25:23, 2528, 2529, 16330 to 16333. inclusive, 16335, 16336, 16337, 16339, 16362 903, . 2540, 2554, 2555, 2558, 2578, 2580, 2607.

16108, 16411, 16440, 16142, 16144 to 16451 inclusive, 16453, WICHITA.

16454 to 16475 inclusive, 16479 to 16489 inclusive, 16491 to Nos. 3863, 3918, 3935, 3938, 3940, 3944, 3949, 3965, 4039, 4014,

DEADWOOD.

16497 inclusive, 16501 to 16511 inclusive, 16513 to 16533 4053, 4059, 4060, 4062, 4063, 4064, 4066 to 4077 inclusive. Yos, 56, 71, 81, 86, 168, 203, 220.

inclusive, 16535, 16536 16568, 16539, 16540.

DENVER

HURON.

BOZEMAN,

LE GRAND.

SHASTA.

WALLA WALLA.

PUEBLO.

ABERDEEN.

COPP'S LAND OWNER.

VOL. X.

WASHINGTON, D. C., JUNE 1, 1883.

No. 5.

PAGK

65

PRACTICE.

67

68

69 over.

69

HOMESTEADS.

PRE-EMPTION.

70

RAILROADS.

Entered at the Post Ofice at Washington, D. C., as

This paper furnishes more valuable law informa- counties in middle Georgia, are likely to second-class matter.

tion for less money, and is read by more land attor" be considerably encumbered by law suits THIS NOTICE MARKED with a blue or red neys and real estate dealers, by more homestead,

about their lands, a Col. Cox having old pencil indicates that your subscription expires with pre-emption, and other land claimants, and by more

which he prothis issue, and if you wish the paper continued with mine owners, engineers, and superintendents, than deeds to over 300,000 acres, out interruption, you should remit your renewal any other publication in the United States.

poses to sue for.
subscription at 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
Directory one year.
S. land offices are authorized to receive

ATTENTION is called to the card of J. A. subscriptions for this paper.

Sibbald on front page of cover. The firm CONTENTS.

of Wilshire & Sibbald is dissolved, and Editorial Notes-Land Personals-Shade Trees in Washington.

TWENTY-TWO ostriches, which have been Mr. Sibbald succeeds to the business of sojourning in Central Park, New York, the late firm.

were blindfolded with stockings and placed GEN. ELLERY C. FORD is kept very busy Contests in Ohio, Indiana and Illinois.. De Lancy vs. Bower-Griffin vs. Marsh, and Doyle

in a car for California, where they will have with his extensive mining law business. vs. Wilson.

67 a farm of eight hundred acres to roam He has recently made several flying trips J. K. Tindall-Joseph Williams. Perjury....

The transportation is to cost $2,- north and east in the interests of his 000.

clients. MINES AND MINERALS. Wisconsin Mg. Co. vs. Cooper

THE Dunkards, who are the best farm- CURTIS & BURDETT last week bought for ers in Virginia, are selling their lands in a western operator who desired to locate

the Shenandoah Valley at from $60 to the same, forty-one thousand three hunWilliam H. Glasg-Lloyd H. Dillon-Guyton vs. Prince.

70 $180 an acre, and then buying farms in the dred dollars' worth of Valentine scrip, at

tide-water counties, the exhausted tobacco $35 per acre.
lands, at $6 to $15 per acre.

The Dunk-
Morgan vs. Maxwell..

This is perhaps the largest transaction U.S. er rel. Hubbell vs. Ilgen--Plummer et al. vs. ards went to Virginia from Pennsylvania in the scripline of the season, and the Jackman. 71 before the Revolutionary war.

high price paid shows the activity in westFTIMBER LANDS.

IRRIGATION has been tried in Western ern lands. Spithili vs. Gowan

73 Kansas with marvelous results. For- The new law firm of Sickels & Randall Department Circular-De Coster und Flemington. 74 merly it was thought that the dry plains acted as attorneys for the successful party

stretching towards the Arkansas river in the pre-emption case of Plummer vs. Northern Pacific Railroad.

74 were useless for agricultural purposes. Jackman, the decision wherein is published New Orleans, Baton Rouge & Vicksburg R. R. Co. 75 The light and fickle rainfall, the dry air, elsewhere in this issue. PRIVATE LAND CLAIMS.

the hot winds, and the long summers, were A MONG the recent well-deserved promoPeter Sherreback Claim.

77 supposed to constitute a combination of tions in the General Land Office, Yvon SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO.

unfavorable elements that it would be im- Pike goes to the 3d class and W. G. Nolen Poise vs. Wells.........

79 possible to overcome. But broad ditches to the 20 class. P. G. Michenor, of Indi. UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT.

were dug that distributed the waters of ana, is appointed to a 1st class clerkship. District of California: Pacific Coast Mining and the Arkansas over these tracts, and now Milling Co. vs. Spargo et al......

ATTENTION is called to the card of Ridthey bloom like a garden. The crops ale, Davis & Padgett, on the 4th page of XISCELLANEOUS.

yielded the past year were astonishing. Real Estate Decisions by Federuiand State Courts 82

cover, in the space formerly occupied by Proclamation for Sale of Public Lands...

A RECENT sale of two tracts of cedar Evans, Padgett & Emmons.
Notice of Establishment of Hailey Land District,
Idaho......
timber lands in Wilson county, Tenn.,

In the Land Directory see card of A. Mineral Patents Issued..

33 shows which way the cedar trade is des- s. Mitchell, of Volga, Dakota, a live real Cash Patents Issued.. Homestead Patents Issued.

tined to go. These lands are exception- estate man.

ally well timbered, but $49.25 per acre for PROFESSIONAL CARDS.

one, and $46.25 for the other, are concluRedington & Hill, Washington, D.C.. Curtis & Burdett, Washington, D. C....

sive evidences of a brisk demand for the SHADE TREES IN WASHINGTON. Capt. John Mullan, San Francisco & Washington. D. H. Talbot, Sioux City, Iowa..

cedar in the near future. This will, of The large unbroken rows of young trees Ellery C. Ford, Washington, D. C.....

course, enhance the value of manufactured bordering the streets and avenues of WashSickels & Randall, Washington, D. C. Drummond & Bradford, Washington, D. C. cedar, besides giving an impetus in cedar ington, giving promise of abundance of W. K. Menden hall, Washington, B. C.... Julian & Meloy, Washington, D. C...

i land speculations. It will, therefore, be shade in a few years more, and the more J. A. Sibbald, Washington, D. C.....

i the wise ones among the dealers who will matured and stately arborary ornaments W.J. Johnston, Washington, D.C.. Chas. & William B. King, Washington, D. C.

buy all the stock they can get at present of the parks and reservations, are one of Walter H. Smith, Washington, D. C... iv prices.

the features of the National Capital's H. J. Frost, Washington, D. C.. Riddle, Davis & Padgett, Washington, D. C...... IV

beauty. Though most of the trees are yet John R. Morgan, Washington, D. C...

The Lindsley Land and Lumber Co., too slender and youthful to be of great

of La Crosse, Wis., have recently pur- present value, it has required years of Land Directory... American Settler's Guide...

J chased 80,000 acres of land in Bradley labor and unremitting attention to get Copp's Land Owner-Bound. III county, Ark.

them so well started upon their careers of Copp's Public Land Laws. Munn & Co., Patents....

usefulness; for shade trees combine the Copp's U.S. Mineral Lands Copp's Ameriean Mining Code

The citizens of Richmond, Franklin, double quality of being useful as well as General Price List

iv Washington, Dooley, Cookę and other lornamental.

81

83

83

84
84

PAGE

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
« ZurückWeiter »