129 F. 1 | 8th Cir. | 1904
after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the court.
By the common law of England, an action for the recovery of damages for injury to land is local, and can be brought only where the land is situated. This is the law in most of the states of the Union, 1 Chitty, Pl. 281; Shipman, Com. L. Pl. (2d Ed.) 201, 383; Cooley on Torts, 471; Livingston v. Jefferson, 15 Fed. Cas. 660, No. 8,411; McKenna v. Fisk, 1 How. 241, 11 L. Ed. 117; Ellenwood v. Marietta Chair Co., 158 U. S. 105, 15 Sup. Ct. 771, 39 L. Ed. 913. The operation of this common-law rule has been much restricted by legislation in England (British South Africa Co. v. Companhia de Mocambique [1893] App. Cas. 602) and in some of the states (15 Fed. Cas. 665, note; Genin v. Grier, 10 Ohio, 209, 214). There are other states in which the rule never prevailed. Holmes v. Barclay, 4 La. Ann. 63. The matter is essentially one of state policy or local law. As was said by Mr. Justice Gray in Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U. S. 657, 669, 13 Sup. Ct. 224, 36 L. Ed. 1123:
“Whether actions to recover pecuniary damages for trespasses to real estate * * * are purely local, or may be brought abroad, depends upon the question whether they are viewed as relating to the real estate, or only as affording a personal remedy. * * * And whether an action for trespass to land in one state can be brought in another state depends on the view which the latter state takes of the nature of the action.”
In Minnesota an action for pecuniary damages for trespass to real estate in another state is viewed, not as relating to the real estate, but only as affording a personal remedy. It is there deemed to be transitory in nature, and not local. In Little v. Chicago, etc., Railway Co., 65 Minn. 48, 67 N. W. 846, 33 L. R. A. 423, 60 Am. St. Rep. 421, the Supreme Court of that state, in sustaining the jurisdiction of the courts of the state over an action brought to recover damages for injuries to real estate situated in Wisconsin, said:
“The reparation is purely personal, and for damages. Such an action is purely personal, and in no sense real.”
By the existing judiciary act (Act Aug. 13, 1888, c. 866, § 1, 25 Stat. 433 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 508]) it is declared:
“That the Circuit Courts of the United States shall have original cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several states, of all suits of a civil nature, at common law or in equity, where the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value of two thousand dollars and*5 * * * in which there shall be a controversy between citizens of different states, * * * but where the jurisdiction is founded only on the fact that the action is between citizens of different states, suit shall be brought only in the district of the residence of either the plaintiff or the defendant. * * *>>
This action presents a controversy between citizens of different states, and was brought in the district and division of the residence of the defendants. It is of a civil nature, is a common-law action, and the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value of $2,000. Being also an action which is cognizable in the courts of the state, as before shown, it is equally within the concurrent cognizance of the Circuit Court of the United States, within that state. It was said by Mr. Justice Field in Gaines v. Fuentes, 92 U. S. 10, 18, 20, 23 L. Ed. 524, in referring to the jurisdiction of the federal courts tof suits at common law or in equity in which there is a controversy between citizens of different states:.
“The Constitution imposes no limitation upon the class of cases involving controversies between citizens of different states to which the judicial power of the United States may be extended, and Congress may therefore lawfully provide for bringing, at the option of either of the parties, all such controversies within the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary. * * * There are no separate equity courts in Louisiana, and suits for special relief of the nature here sought are not there designated suits in equity. But they are none the less essentially such suits; and if, by the law obtaining in the state, customary or statutory, they can be maintained in a state court, whatever designation that court may bear, we think they may be maintained by original process in a federal court, where the parties are, on the one side, citizens of Louisiana, and, on the other, citizens of other states.”
Even if the action be regarded as one for the recovery of damages for injury to land, we think it was cognizable in the circuit court.
But we believe this is an action for the recovery of damages for the conversion of personal property — one more in the nature of trespass de bonis asportatis or trover than of trespass quare clausum fregit — and that it is transitory, and not local, under the common-law distinction. By the laws of Minnesota (sections 5131, 5228-5231, Gen. St. 1894), the forms of actions existing at common law are abolished, and the first pleading or complaint by the plaintiff is required to contain a plain and concise statement of the facts constituting his cause of action, and a demand for the relief to which he supposes himself entitled. The facts stated and the relief demanded, rather than the form of statement, determine the nature of the action. The facts here stated and the relief demanded show that the gravamen of the action is the conversion of the lumber manufactured out of the trees, and that the purpose of the action is to recover the value of the lumber. There is no direct statement of a depreciation in the value of the land by reason of the trespass, and there is no attempt to dwell upon the injury to the land by stating that the remaining trees or undergrowth were injured, that roads were constructed through the land, or that the soil was disturbed in hauling away the pine timber, or was'incumbered with the limbs and tops of the trees removed. This, and the fullness and particularity with which the complaint states the manufacture of the severed trees into lumber and their conversion, shows that the conversion is deemed the principal thing, and that the trespass is stated only as illustrating
“Although, as standing trees are part of the inheritance, and the severing them from it is deemed an injury to the freehold, for which trespass quare clausum fregit is the appropriate remedy, yet the party may waive that ground of recovery, and claim the value of timber only thus severed and carried away. In (he one case the entering and breaking of the close is the gist of the action; in the other, the taking and carrying away of the property. In the latter case the action is transitory, and not local.”
This case is unlike Ellenwood v. Marietta Chair Co., 158 U. S. 105, 15 Sup. Ct. 771, 39 E. Ed. 913, relied upon by the plaintiffs in error, because there the allegations of the petition made a continuing trespass upon the land, covering a period of more than 10 years, the principal thing, and the conversion of the timber only incidental. The case of Stone v. United States, 167 U. S. 178, 182, 17 Sup. Ct. 778, 42 L. Ed. 127, is more in point. There the petition stated the ownership of the lands by the plaintiff, and that the defendant “unlawfully, wrongfully, and willfully cut from the said lands 77,441 trees.” It then stated with much particularity that the defendant thereafter manufactured the trees into lumber and railroad ties and converted these to his own use,
“In the present case the petition, it is true, avers that the United States was the owner of the lands from which the trees were cut, but the gravamen of the action was the conversion of the lumber and the railroad ties manufactured out of such trees, and a judgment was asked, not for the trespass, but for the value of the personal property so converted by the defendant. The description in the petition of the lands and the averment of ownership in the United States were intended to show the right of the government to claim the value of the personal property manufactured from the trees illegally taken from its lands. Although the government’s [defendant’s] denial of the [government’s] ownership of the land made it necessary for it to prove its ownership, the action, in its essential features, related to personal property, was of a transitory nature, and could be brought in any jurisdiction in which the defendant could be found and served with process.”
That case is so nearly identical with the present one that the decision of the Supreme Court therein controls the determination of the question now under consideration, and requires that this action be held to be transitory and within the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court.
It is said that “the court charged the jury that the measure of damages was not the value of the logs taken, but their value as it appeared in the tree,” and because of this we are asked to declare this action local. This instruction was given at the request of the defendants. If it properly states the rule for measuring the damages to be awarded in an action for the conversion of personal property under the circumstances shown at the trial (Wooden Ware Co. v. United States, 105 U. S. 432, 27 L. Ed. 230; Forsyth v. Wells, 41 Pa. 291, 80 Am. Dec. 617; Gentry v. United States, 41 C. C. A. 185, 101 Fed. 51; United States v. Homestake Mining Co., 54 C. C. A. 303, 117 Fed. 481), it is in harmony with the court’s jurisdiction of the case ,* and, if it states the rule more favorable to the defendants than they were entitled to ask, its only effect has been to diminish the damages which otherwise would have been awarded to the plaintiff — a matter which cannot be invoked by the defendants to defeat the jurisdiction or otherwise. It was correctly ruled at the beginning of the trial, and again at its close, that the action was one for the conversion of personal property and not for trespass to land.
Does plaintiff’s title under the patent issued May 16, 1898, upon his homestead entry, relate back to a time anterior to the cutting of the timber by the defendants in the winter of 1893 and 1894, and entitle him to maintain this action? The solution of this question depends upon the-effect to be given in this action to the proceedings in the Eand Department of the United States upon the adverse claims of the plaintiff and Judd. The land covered by the patent issued to the plaintiff, while formerly within a land grant made in aid of the construction of a'railroad, was restored to the public domain under the act of September 29,1890, c. 1040, § 2, 26 Stat. 496 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1599], with a direction that actual settlers in good faith at the date of the act should have a preference right of entry, and should “be regarded as such actual settlers from the date of actual settlement or occupation.” Proceedings
“For example, if, when a patent is about to issue, the secretary should discover a fatal defect in the proceedings, or that, by reason of some newly ascertained fact, the patent, if issued, would have to be annulled, and that it would be his duty to ask the Attorney General to institute proceedings for its annulment, it would hardly be seriously contended that the secretary might not interfere and prevent the execution of the patent. He could not be obliged to sit quietly and allow a proceeding to be consummated, which it would be immediately his duty to ask the Attorney General to take measures to annul.”
But the power of the Land Department to review its prior rulings and to cancel existing entries is not unlimited or arbitrary (Cornelius v. Kessel, 128 U. S. 456, 9 Sup. Ct. 122, 32 L. Ed. 482), and can be exercised only after notice to parties in interest and due opportunity for a full hearing (Brown v. Hitchcock, 173 U. S. 478, 19 Sup. Ct. 485, 43 L. Ed. 772; Guaranty Savings Bank v. Bladow, 176 U. S. 448, 453, 20 Sup. Ct. 425, 44 L. Ed. 540; Hawley v. Diller, 178 U. S. 489, 20 Sup. Ct. 986, 44 L. Ed. 1157; Thayer v. Spratt, 189 U. S. 346, 351, 23 Sup. Ct. 576, 47 L. Ed. 845). One who purchases of an entryman before the issuance of a patent obtains no greater right or estate than is possessed by the entryman, and acquires at the most a right or equitable estate, which is subject to examination in the Land Department while the title remains in the government. In the absence of a statute providing otherwise, he is chargeable with knowledge of the state of the title which he buys, holds it subject to any equities which could be asserted against it in the hands of the vendor, and takes the risk of losing it if it is subsequently shown that the entry is based upon an error of law or a clear misapprehension of the facts, which, if not corrected, will lead to the transfer of the government’s title to one not entitled to it. Hawley v. Diller, 178 U. S. 485-488, 20 Sup. Ct. 986, 44 L. Ed. 1157; Guaranty Savings Bank v. Bladow, 176 U. S. 454, 20 Sup. Ct. 425, 44 L. Ed. 540; Thayer v. Spratt, 189 U. S. 352, 23 Sup. Ct. 576, 47 L. Ed. 845. The Land Department being a special tribunal to which Congress has confided the administration and execution of the laws for the disposition of the public lands, the final judgment of the officers of that department as to matters of fact properly determinable by them is conclusive, when brought to notice in a collateral proceeding, such as this is, and is unassailable, except by a direct proceeding for its correction or annulment. Johnson v. Towsley, 13 Wall. 72, 20 L. Ed. 485; Shepley v. Cowan, 91 U. S. 330, 340, 23 L. Ed. 424; Quinby v. Conlan, 104 U. S. 420, 26 L. Ed. 800; Steel v. Smelting Co., 106 U. S. 447, 1 Sup. Ct. 389, 27 L. Ed. 226; Moss v. Dowman, 176 U. S. 413, 20 Sup. Ct. 429, 44 L. Ed. 526; Calhoun, etc., Co. v. Ajax, etc., Co., 182 U. S. 499, 510, 21 Sup. Ct. 885,45 L. Ed. 1200; De Cambra v. Rogers, 189 U. S. 119, 23 Sup. Ct. 519, 47 L. Ed. 734; Gertgens v. O’Connor, 191 U. S. 237, 24 Sup. Ct. 95, 48 L. Ed. 164; James v. Germania Iron Co., 46 C. C. A. 476, 107 Fed. 597; Uinta Tunnel, etc., Co. v. Creede, etc., Co., 57 C. C. A. 200, 119 Fed. 164. As was said by Mr. Justice Field in Smelting Co. v. Kemp, 104 U. S. 636, 640, 26 L. Ed. 875:
“The execution and record of the patent are the final acts of the officers of the government for the transfer of its title, and, as they can be lawfully performed only after certain steps have been taken, that instrument, duly*10 signed, countersigned, and sealed, not merely operates to pass the title, but is in the nature of an official declaration by that branch of the government to which the alienation of the public lands, under the law, is intrusted, that all the requirements preliminary to its issue have been complied with. The presumptions thus attending it are not open to rebuttal in an action at law.”
By the application of these established rules to the facts of this case, it is seen that the proceedings in the Rand Department, which terminated with the issuance of the patent to the plaintiff, were within the jurisdiction of that department, and by them it is conclusively determined, so far as this action is concerned, that the plaintiff, by full compliance with the requirements of the homestead law, entitled himself to the patent; that he lawfully settled upon the land, and lawfully maintained his residence thereon for a continuous period of at least five years before the patent was issued, these being conditions precedent to obtaining a patent under the statutes (section 2291, Rev. St., Act May 14, 1880, c. 89, § 3, 21 Stat. 140, 141, U. S. Comp. St. 1901, pp. 1390, 1393) under which this patent was issued; that Judd never entitled himself to a patent ; and that his entry was properly canceled, because wrongfully obtained. The defendants obtained no right to the land or to the timber by their purchase from Judd. His entry and his conveyance to the defendants have no bearing whatever upon this action, save as they indicate whether the defendants appropriated the timber under such an honest Belief in a legal right so to do as affects or limits the damages which otherwise would be recoverable from them.
After the plaintiff, in the course of asserting a claim adverse to Judd, had secured the cancellation of the latter’s entry and the rejection of the defendant’s claim thereunder, it was entirely competent for the land officers to give full effect to plaintiff’s residence upon the «and during the existence of that entry, if such residence was actual, and was begun and maintained in good faith, with a view to obtaining title under the homestead law. Counsel for the defendants call attention to a statute of Wisconsin (section 4165, Rev. St. 1898) purporting to give certain probative force to a final receipt or patent certificate issued under the land laws of the United States, and argue from this that the plaintiff was a mere trespasser during the existence of Judd’s entry, and that his residence upon the land during that time could not be made the basis of any right, legal or equitable. There are two sufficient answers to this contention. One is that, before the plaintiff’s residence during that period was made the basis of issuing a patent to him, the receipt or certificate issued to Judd had been canceled by competent authority because it was wrongfully obtained, and by that cancellation had been deprived of all probative force. Guaranty Savings Bank v. Bladow; Thayer v. Spratt, supra. The other is that a state cannot by its legislation restrict or affect the authority of the officers of the Band Department in the disposition of the public lands of the United States, or withhold from the grantees of the United States any of the incidents of the transfer of the government’s title. Bagnell v. Broderick, 13 Pet. 436, 450, 10 L. Ed. 235; Wilcox v. McConnel, 13 Pet. 498, 516, 10 L. Ed. 264; Irvine v. Marshall, 20 How. 558, 564, 15 L. Ed. 994; Gibson v. Chouteau, 13 Wall. 92, 99, 20 L. Ed. 534; Langdon v. Sherwood, 124 U. S. 74, 84, 8 Sup. Ct. 429, 31 L. Ed. 344; Paige v. Peters, 70 Wis. 182, 35 N. W. 329, 5 Am. St. Rep. 156.
“The party who takes the initiatory step in such cases, if followed up to patent, is deemed to have acquired the better right, as against others, to the premises. The patent which is afterwards issued relates back to the date of the initiatory act, and cuts off all intervening claimants. Thus the patent upon a state selection takes effect as of the time when the selection is made- and reported to the land office, and the patent upon a pre-emption settlement takes effect from the time of the settlement, as disclosed in the declaratory statement or proofs of the settler to the register of the local land office.”
Other applications of the doctrine will be found in Cothrin v. Faber,. 68 Cal. 39, 4 Pac. 940, 8 Pac. 599; Jackson v. Bull, 1 Johns. Cas. 81 Id., 2 Caines, Cas. 301; Jackson v. Ramsay, 3 Cow. 75, 15 Am. Dec. 242; Heath v. Ross, 12 Johns. 146; St. Onge v. Day, 11 Colo. 368, 18 Pac. 278; Musser v. McRae, 44 Minn. 343, 46 N. W. 673. It conclusively appears, as before shown, that the timber was severed from-the land after the initiation and during the maintenance of the plaintiff’s homestead claim; in other words, while he had a conditional or inchoate right to the land, which was capable of perfection through compliance with the homestead law, and which in due course ripened into a full legal and equitable title before the commencement of this action. This conditional or inchoate right included an exclusive right to the possession so long as the plaintiff should comply in good faith with the requirements of the law controlling homestead claims, and included a further right to earn and receive the title. This right to the possession and to earn and receive the title extended to everything which was part of the land — timber as well as soil. The severance of the timber from the soil was a violation or infraction of the plaintiff’s right to the possession, and of his right to earn and receive the title. It was an injury to both. It may be that the conditional or inchoate right of a homestead claimant is subject to a power in Congress to terminate it in whole or in part — as to the land or only as to the timber —at any time before it is perfected into a vested equitable estate by full compliance with the requirements of the law, but it is not terminable or subject to impairment by third persons. Unquestionably, in the absence of the exercise of such a power by Congress — and its exercise here • is not claimed — the plaintiff was entitled, upon perfecting his homestead claim, to receive a conveyance of the land in the condition in which it was when his claim was initiated. The defendants made that impossible. When the patent was issued, the timber was gone. In its stead there existed a right of action for its conversion. Does not the promotion of justice — the due protection of the plaintiff’s rights — require that his patent be held to relate to the date of his initiatory act, and thereby to invest him with that which now takes the place of the timber? We think it does. The terms of the statute are such that the presence of valuable timber on public land does not exclude it from homestead settlement or entry. It is therefore probable and reasonable
The judgment is affirmed.
