*1 426 1910.
Opinion of the Court. v. NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY WASS. op op supreme state
ERROR to court MINNESOTA. reargument Argued 28, for April 27, Restored docket
No. 181. Reargued January 19, 20, Febru- 1911 . Decided December 1910 . ary 20, 1911. Hoyt, anteojo. Weyerhaeuser 380. v. Decided on opinion. facts are stated Kellogg, Frank B. Mr. with Bunn and Mr. Charles W: brief, appellants on the Mr. Burr was whom Stiles W. appellees in No. 24 and No. in No. in error Bunn for plaintiffs
Mr. Charles W. Hoyt Mr. H. H. was Mr. M. H. with Stanford, whom appellants 24 and in No. appellees brief, No. 181.1 in error in No.
Mr. P. B. for defendant Gorman Mr., opinion delivered Chief Justice White the court. follows: While are of this case brief, the facts Rail- Paul and the St. selection of a limits
way. of land within Secretary of the action awaiting grant railroad case, Weyerhaeuser v. simultaneously No. argued This Campbell ante, p. 324. v. Hoyt, ante, p. 380, and No. CO. WASS. RY. PACIFIC Opinion of Court. .the entered April, inWass, Fred Interior, and con homestead, it a making with the intention etc. In De making improvements, possession, tinued *2 Office following presented Wass cember homestead laws. the tract application to enter but on application, and receiver register The and refused to receive the fees day rejected same the rejection upon such refusal tendered, basing in for the then the lands filed were that the action of the local Land appeal selection. On pending of the the Commissioner General was affirmed Interior respec of the Land Office and and a subsequently approved The selection was tively. of Minne governor for the lands was issued patent in the all which became vested sota, rights under in That plaintiff error. against action then commenced this Wass in a of the State of Minnesota to recover his wife court damages land and the detention. possession relief was among things, other affirmative answer, conveyance for the against railway company prayed A demurrer to the answer title to Wass. in v. Sjoli of the decision authority overruled upon in favor a decree was entered Dreschel, U. S. (cid:127) him. decree This prayed by of Wass, granting the relief Minnesota Court of Supreme was affirmed of the as the decision Sjoli case as well in Hoyt Circuit Court of Appeals reviewing announced, Fed. Rep. opinion just The case Hoyt Appeals the action of the Circuit Court conclusively case, entered that reversing the decree below, court by' establishes that error was committed requires and therefore a reversal. is there- judgment Court Minnesota Supreme case is remanded to that court reversed,
fore not inconsistent with this- 'proceedings opinion. further Í9ÍÜ, OCTOBER 42& g. Day, Jb, dissenting. Mr. Justice with whom Harlan, concurred Mr. Jus- tice Day,, dissenting.
This in the actiomwas instituted District of Todd Court County, Minnesota, by the Northern Pacific Railway corporation, a Wisconsin Company,- recover the pos session and for the detention of damages, the southeast quarter thirteen, township of section one hundred and twenty-nine, range thirty-two west, north of situated the above county.
The answer of the defendant Wass states certain facts by way both and as the basis for an defense affirmative against Railway Company, declaring decree legal title to the land is for his benefit, held trust use and conveyed him. should be The company demurred as not stating the answer facts sufficient to constitute *3 a a either defense or counterclaim. The demurrer was overruled, and the case determined on the facts stated in answer, well as on set forth in a special those find ing. By the adjudged decree was that the title was defendant, or-, held in trust for the plaintiff convey dered to him by the title to sufficient On deed. Sjoli 199 Dreschel, U. and Hoyt v. 937 Rep. (104 116 N. W. Minnesota, 411), Supreme Court of Minnesota affirmed the decree. The case is here for review.
Upon the record before us the following facts must be as béyond taken question: question
1. The lands in surveyed were public lands of United States within the twenty mile indemnity lim its of what are known as the Northern Pacific Railroad to grants Congress made the Territory of Minne sota 11 3d., 1857, 99, act March c. Stat. 195, and act 3d, 1865, 105,13 of March c. Stat. 526, granting State, 3d, lands to that last act was which amended March 144. Stat. c. v RY. CO. WASS. PACIFIC dissenting. Day, JJ., U. S. legislature 1st, March act of By ail in rights all its these lands to transferred Minnesota of that State. That Railway Company Western Paul assigned its St. and North- rights subsequently Pacific interest Company, predecessor ern present plaintiff. 3; 1877, the thirty-first On the of December West- day in the Land Office list Railway Company filed proper ern lands under the in- contain selection purporting grants question; demnity provisions however particular primary lands within any designating grant of either as the basis the selected place limits were among the lands here those tracts. But list of selections. general in the above selec- Nearly years twelve list of after namely, on De- tions Western by the St. Paul and Northern Pacific Rail- 4th, 1889, cember filed in the local way Company indemnity lands, which list included
list of the selection of 1892 it February 12th, And on the land in dispute. row selections, and, then, indemnity list of filed a n to have alleged the tract been time, first indicated be sup- which loss it limits, requested in. primary lost Up limits. tract plied by particular had not acted on the Interior time the list's .any of the selection filed. nor approved that request ' very it is not though stated, be here ’may The.fact within are also lands' above described important, grant made of. the Northern indemnity limits *4 and c. 13 Stat. were July 2d, 1864, the act of lands made included withdrawal Secretary 26th, Interior -on December 1871. But General Land Office, that was revoked withdrawal September approved and no final or selection of 6th, 1887, any pro- was ever made under the. described tracts grant. of the Northern Pacific visions 1910- <430 JJ., dissenting. Day, Harlan and of the Interior April 1899—the original, date, approved at that either having, even indemnity lands, or as selections company’s lists filed—Wass on the theretofore shown and possession made a settle- “entered took the lands maintained question, ment” on thereafter use residing such the lands possession homestead, continuously his upon, cultivating only them as using home. He also reason- put improvements on them of the of $1,200. able value All the bona this he did with fide intention homestead laws. entering in their improved $2,500 The lands state exceeded qualified value. Wass in all respects become claimant laws homestead of the United States. No made at hearing below either as to his as a qualifications homestead claimant or toas"" of his sufficiency residence on the land the value his improvements.
7. On the fourth of December 1899, Wass filed with the Register and of the local Land appli- Office an Recéiver. cation —which was due and form, ancl was ac- companied by proofs of qualifications and acts as a claimant —to homestead enter said lands under the homestead the Receiver the fees and tendered lawfully commissions chargeable upon his application. The Register who Receiver received filed the ap- and. plication rejected it, refusing to take the fee's and commis- sions tendered “upon the ground sole that applied the-lands for were in a then pending though in- unapproved -St; demnity selection of the Paul and Northern Pacific ’’ Railway. This action was approved by the Commissioner of the General Land tentlT of on July application defendant’s “conflicted prior indemnity selection of the land made St. Paul and Northern Pacific Railway Company.” The selection here referred to was manifestly the amended or *5 PACIFIC RY. CO. v. WASS. Day, JJ., dissenting. 219 U. S. Harlan indemnity list of selections filed by that 4, on December Subsequently, on Jan- of the 9, 1904, Secretary Interior uary affirmed the of the of the Commissioner General Office, decision indemnity “on the selection of said lands the St. Paul and Northern Pacific by Railway and its predécessor, the Western of Minne- prior were valid and of record to the date of sota, the al- of homestead leged application” by settlement no to the defendant But he made reference the en- Wass. on try and settlement of Wass under the home- -prior approval stead the list selections Secretary the Interior. nearly six February, years 8. On the sixteenth 1905— improved entered and these lands settled TF^ss after Interior, for the as his home—the first indemnity the list of selections made time, approved Railway Company. the St. Paul and Northern Pacific March, 1905, patent 9. On the fifteenth of issued State for the use benefit States United being the lands described as grants 3, 1857, above of March March and March of law which
These
facts
undisputed
present
and determine. The
the court
consider
may rightfully
found
authoritatively
facts,
doctrine is settled
in the course of its administration
Department
the Land
collaterally questioned.
cannot be
public domain,
has
from the
yet
passed
But
when the
title to lands
good
con-
party,
equity
States to one
when
United
found
estab-
conceded,
to the facts
science, according-,
of those facts,
in view
law,
as a matter
lished,
when,
ad-
may be
the former
ought
gone
another,
to have
owner,
latter,
the title in trüst for the
true
to hold
judged
convey
Starrs,
to him. Stark v.
6 Wall.
compelled
and-
v; Rob-
Moore
419;
Towsley,
72;
Johnson v.
13 Wall.
Dat;, JJ., dissenting.
219 U. S.
96 U. S.
bins,
530;
Gibbon,
Rector v.
U. S. 291; Bernier
In re
Bernier,
242, 247;
Emblen, 52;
*6
Hedrick v. A.,
Co.,
T. & S. F. R.
The contention is that under the issued fpr United States to the . the use and State benefit of the rights.of all original the the State passed Railway Company; whereas, defendant claims that the Land Officesand the Secretary of the Interior illegally interfered his purpose to his lawful claim originating under the homestead perfect laws right the United do States, which, he in- of sists, belonged provisions him under of 2289 and § other Statutes, sections of Revised acts Congress. hold
Upon facts, we undisputed wass' entry lands, settlement upon application these them, with bona intention to complete his title fide all occurring homestead before the Secre- tary’s approval list, gave him company’s interest right particular wffiichcould not impaired be subsequent approval defeated the Secretary of the Interior of the list selected lands beneficiary the land grant, although such list was filed prior to entry, Wass’ settlement and applica- tion. The pendency of the list in the Land Office was not decisive, for reason that it had not been approved by the Secretary at the time Wass’ claim was and at- m$de tached to the lands. The lands in question, being within indemnity limits, were open to entry, settlement and ac- quisition by qualified claimants homestead laws, after and notwithstanding the mere of the list of selected lands; and rights acquired by the home- steader in the manner stated impaired were not or over- ridden by the Secretary’s of such subsequent approval list.
For the reasons stated in dissenting opinion CO. INTERSTATE COMM. COMM. SO..PACIFIC. V. Syllabus. Weyerhaeuser v. Hoyt, just decided, the judgment should be from affirmed. We dissent the opinion and judgment majority. SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY v. INTERSTATE
COMMERCE COMMISSION. THE APPEAL FROM CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES THE FOR DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Argued February
No. 527. December 1910. Decided Commission, An order of Interstate Commerce made in conse- (cid:127) quence assumption powers possessed by it, is void, and its n *7 enforcement should be restrained the courts. (cid:127) powers of the Interstate Commerce Commission do not extend to regulating controlling policy owners of railroads in fixing rates, just . and it substitute rate, cannot for a and reasonable rate, ground a lower policy ground either on the or on the wg.sby charging railroad its former conduct from estopped reason- , able rate. shippers complain higher Where the do not a new and rate because intrinsically one, because, although it is an unreasonable but reason- estopped able, the are to advance it on having railroads account of period, beyond lower maintained the rate for a it is considerable power rate; of the Commission direct a restoration the old Valley regard so held in to the Willamette lumber fates. restoring makes an
Where the Commission order rate shows on estopped its face it made on the that the railroad was to1 presumed it, increase order will not be made for have been rate, if it purpose establishing excludes a a reasonable section from the which amounts to discrimina- benefit restored rate against tion that section.
Questions the Interstate arising validity Com- order merely fixing moot because
merce Commission a rate do not become period expired, where an ele- for which the rate is has prescribed liability reparation Ter- ment remains. See Southern Commission,post, .p. v. Interstate minal Commerce VOL. OCXIX—28