55 Neb. 210 | Neb. | 1898
On May 22, 1875, the state of Nebraska leased to one 5. L. Northrop the west half of the northeast quarter of section 36, in township 2 north and range 9 east of the sixth P. M., for a term of twenty-five years from and after January 1, 1876, in accordance with the provisions of chapter 70, General Statutes 1873. William T. Patter
1. On June 24, 1867, an act providing for the registry of the school lands of the state and for their control and disposition went into effect. This is chapter 70, G-eneral Statutes 1873. By section 17 of this act the county com-' missioners of the several counties of the state were authorized and directed to lease the common school and university lands within their counties upon certain terms and conditions for a term of twenty-five years from the first day of January after the date of such lease.. It was in pursuance of this section of the statute that the lease to Northrop was made. Without a review or analysis of this statute, it must suffice to say that it contained no provision by which a lessee of the school lands of the state was given the right or option to purchase at private sale the lands leased by him during the continuance of his lease. So that the only right which Northrop acquired to the land in controversy by virtue of his lease was the right to use and occupy it for twenty-five years from and after the first of January, 1876, upon paying the cash rent reserved by the lease. The legislature of 1877 (see Session Laws 1877, p. 174) passed another act, completé in itself, in reference to the registry, sale, leasing, and general management of the school lands of the state. This act made no reference whatever to the act of 1867, just referred to, and while it provided for the leas
A second contention of the respondents is that the provision of the acts of 1879, 1883, and 1885 which authorizes a lessee of school lands to purchase the same at private sale was an option or a privilege granted without consideration to such lessee by the state, and might be withdrawn by it at any time before its accejrtance by such lessee; and that by the passage of the act of 1897 the state did withdraw this option given the lessee to purchase, and that as Patterson had not availed himself of the privilege granted him to purchase the land at private sale prior to the time the statute withdrew the option in 1897, he is not now entitled to do so. We think the contention of the respondents correct so far as it relates to lessees of school lands whose leases were executed prior to the taking effect of the act of 1879. The case at bar does not require us to decide whether the state could pass a valid law withdrawing the option to purchase from lessees whose leases were executed after the passage of the act of 1879, and we do not, therefore, decide that question. It is not a debatable proposition that Patterson can claim no greater rights under the lease in controversy than could his assignor Northrop, and that Northrop^ rights were fixed and determined by the statutes in force at the time of the execution of his lease in reference to the leasing of school lands. (State v. Commissioners, 4 Wis. 432; State v. Thayer, 46 Neb. 137; State v. McPeak, 31 Neb. 139.) The state did not contract to sell these lands to Northi'op, either by the lease which it issued‘to him or by any statute in force at that time; and if the acts of 1879, 1883, and 1885 had never been passed, then of course he would be in no position to in
Counsel for Patterson insist that the state has estopped itself from refusing to sell these lands to him at private sale. In his application for a mandamus Patterson alleges that, relying upon the provisions of the acts of 1879, 1883, and 1885, authorizing lessees of school land to purchase the same at private sale, and intending so to purchase the land in controversy, he made lasting and valuable improvements upon the same by building a stone house thereon and planting a portion of the land to fruit and ornamental trees, etc., and he insists that the state is now estopped from refusing to sell him the land. We do not mean to say that the state may not estop itself by its conduct the same as an individual, but we think there are two answers to the contention as applied to the facts in this record.
Conceding in the first place that the state by the passage of the act of 1879 granted to the holders of school-land leases executed prior thereto the privilege of purchasing such lands at private sale, and that Patterson, relying upon this promise, changed his status and made permanent improvements upon the leased lands, which he would not otherwise have done, still, for aught the record before us discloses, the state gave Patterson a reasonable opportunity to avail himself of the option or privilege granted by the act of 1879 before the act of 1897 went into effect, as the latter act was passed without an emergency clause and three calendar months elapsed after its passage before it took effect.
Again, Patterson comes into court invoking the aid of
Affirmed.