text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1900

 INDEX. cxlix Jrokna TI"tICl, HafllGii, deflCi :01:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)__: amount authorized for purchaae of, within Schofield Barracks Res.:. erv£~on ____ • _______________ _ Kamp, Arend, deficiency appropriation for indemnity to Nethenanda for personal In- juries to____________________ _ payment directed to Netherlanda as indemnity for injuries to, by United States ship___________ _ Kanawha RiHr, . bridge authorised &Croll, at Cabin Creek, W. Va___ ~ ___ ___ ____ _ _ at Dunbar, W. Va_______________ _ at Point Pleasan!t,W. Va __ ~ __ _ _ __ _ at Saint Albans, w. Va___________ _ 927 591 912 489 475 981 408 473 time extended for bridlf::~lzom Hen- d81'llOnto Point· t, W. Va_ 314, 1525 at Point Pleasant...,W. Va__________ 1525 at Saint Albanz, w. Va____________ 1527 Kankakc* RiHr, damacroll,at Momence, Ill.tauthorized. 1345 Kano,h Bafld oj IndiGna, Uea,., publio landa reserved for BOle U8e of._ _ 1161 rights of bona fide aettlera prior to October 27, 1928, not affeoted__ 1161 Kana08, compact between, Colorado and Okla- homa, authorized for dlviaion of waters of ArkalllllUl River, etc__ US17 may acquire, after completion, bridge acr0B8 Missouri River, at KanllM City________________ __ _______ 705 sale of Janda in game preserve by, authorized___________________ 300 purohase of other landa for State game preserve, from proceeds of 300 KanB08 Aven1U NW., D. C., appropriation for paving, etc., Shepherd Street to Georgia Avenue; from glBOUne tax fund_ ____________ 652 forpavin~, etc;: east side of, Emerson to Fifth tltreets; from gMOllne tBzfund_____________________ 653 KanB08 o.ily, Kam., bridge authorized 8CI'OII8 Missouri River, at_____________________ 704 time extended for bridging Miuouri Riverat_____________________ 1530 Kam08 Cily, Me:z:ico and Oriem RailVXlY Company, may bridge Rio Grande, betweon Ojl- naga, Mexico, And Presidio, Tex_ 116 consent of Mexico, required________ 116 Kans08 City, Mo., appropriation for publio bullding___ 179,1042 KanB08 CilySouIhem RailfllGY CompanYft maybri~_~_01:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)01:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)~l~_~ 729 time extended for bridging _Miuouri River, at Randolph, Mo______ 1431 Kans08 or Kaw IndiGm, claima of, against United Sta~ to be adjudicated in Court of \JIaims_ 1258 suit to be filed In three yeara; evi- dence allowed___ _____________ 1259 appeal to Supreme Court________ 1259 attorneys' fees by deoreeof court; liInit________________________ 1259 balance placed to credit of the Indiana for their benefit_ ______ 1259 Kanlf08 or Kaw India~tlnned. P.... claims of. against United States; joining ot'othera, Indiana, etc.,. . partiea toIUit____ .:__________________ 1259 K08hena Agency, Ww., appropriation for IIUpport, etc., of In- diana at_ __ __________________ 223 Kauai Islafld, Hawm;l· legislative grant or eleotric franchise on,approved_________________ 243 Kayenta, Ari,., deficiency ·appropria~on for Indian telephone Une from Fiaptaff, Ariz., to_ ____________________ 1638 KayenkJ Tu~ I1&diGn SafWltoNum, Aria., appropriation lor IIUpport, etc., of__ 220,1581 lIum authorized for telephone line West- em Navajo Indian Reaervation to,etc_______________________ lOBO KearM'l/ Street NB., D. C., . appropriation for paving, etc., Ninth to Tenth Streets; from gasoline tax fund _________________ -_~- --- 1271 Keene, Francia B., deficiency appropriation for reimburse- ment to, for stolen Govel'DlD!Bnt fqn~___ ~ _______ ... ___________ 914 Kelly FWId, Ta:., upon acceptance of site for new Army llying field and achool, appro- fh!::to~_::.TarmstroBot (talk)_ 129 KenuatD MI1U7IItJi~ BaUle 'tMtl, appropriation f'or~ ..4___________ 1377 Kenilworth AHft'" Bridgt, D. f!:~ appropriation for reoonatrucuon, etc___ 1273 KenoaluJ, WW., . a~ropria~on for publio buildfnJie 1042 d Cien;tfhli'.rg~J::~O~__f_ _ __ _ . . 921 Kent County, Md. . . time extended for bridg!nJ Cheaapeake
 * l:TarmstroBot (talk)_01:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)TarmstroBot (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC): 414

Kent, Evere", deficiency appropriation for contested eleotion expenses_____________ 1624 Kentucky, appropriation for contribution to, for damages to roads and bridges by 1l00ds of 1927_ _______________ 570 bridge &Cl'OIII Ohio River at HendenioDf Ky., to become property of, ana a free bridge on conveyance by BridpCoDipany___ ' - __ _ __ _ __ _ _ ~6 acquisition authorised, after oom- pletion, by oondemnatioD._ _ _ __ 480 may acquire, after completion, bridge &Cr0B8 Cumberland Rivet', at Canto~Ky-- 138 at Iuka, .l\.y~--- 140 at Smithland. Ky_____ ________ __ 141 brid~y-TarmstroBot (talk)--TarmstroBot (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC):-~:--!~di19,153 at Au~iitKy- 436 at Cairo, ____________________ 196 at CanneltonJ.nd______________ 1432 at Golconda, w_________________ 320 at Maysville, Ky., and Aberdeen Ohio ______________________ 304,306 at Madi80~.IDd 133 at Mound \..lty, IlL_____________ 316

�


text: Talk:Castle v. Bullard/Opinion of the Court

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1901

 cl INDEX. K~inued. 1'.... may Mq1ibe, after oomJJhltioD. bri~ ' .. oM Ohio. RC\'et, bMween Owenahoro, Ky...and Rockport, Ind_______________ .~--- 1323 at~e,y, OhJo______ .. _ _____' __769 . at Sb&wneetown, DL___________ 479 Miaafaippi River, at Bickm&!),Ky__ 322 TeDDelI8IeRivir, at mouth of Clarka .R1yer__.. __ __ __ __ __ _ .. ~--- 143 at...~ Ferry, Tenn. ___' _ __ _ __ 144 Dl&71:TarmstroBot (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)__~;~':.!~ 613 at Burnaide_____________ '~______ 615 at CiI.n _______________ ~_ .... --- 607 at ~nter Point___________ ~____ 614 ,:lCrOOt=:::':::: atg "1'aM ,.,:.._,~ .. - - - - .. - 756 at Neeln Ferry ________________ ~ _ 612 at SmithlAnd_____ -- 608 Ohio lUV8l't at Carrollton __ ~_______ 1316 &:TarmstroBot (talk)beriin(iRfiei_-it 1696 -B1l!DIlde_'_ _____________ _____ 612 Tenne1188 ~"!i'r, at mouta of Clarka ' IU ___ -__ ____ ____ ____ ____ 807 tbne:~ri"Scum~d 608 River, at Arat, by______ .. ~ .. - -. 1'527 aUWrallde, by_.. __ ~ .. ___________ 1488 near ~-WHle, by____ ._. :.. __ _ _ _ 1523 at Ceiltaa..'by_~___ .;.,._ .. - 1501 at 0aDier :POint, by ______ '-~_____ 1500 at Creela~:.. --<a- ".:''-.---.-- II;: '8 at ~ers ) ¥ ..~_____ 1524 atmotithOf ..' at I~,~.,;by.. -_,- 1523 at N=~, by_~ ____ n _____ 1528 S!:th ' cif(rRi';;;' 1501 , atB11l'JlIde. by ___ ,.___________ 1501 TenDei1e8 IUver, at mouth of Kentvc:q,v'~ndicm;;~A;;-- 1524 ,may OhfO lUver, near Cfticlnnati, . (Rd o~_ ___ ___ __ ___ ___ ___ ___ __ 1512 KuMftq, A~, Wu., app~"'fOt.uppmt, etc., of Indl- _ M.; ______:. __'_____________ 1584 for remodeling building for an aged, eto.,. homafW~M""""" ____ 1584 Kuhenq BotJliW, !II""- ~ Wv., - appropliatlDa. : lor ~oUOD and K===TarmstroBot (talk) ::: tableS .·be encted OD aite of Revolu- tioDaT1 War B&Weol________ 718 K~F... W ... .., , tune exteDded t. bricIclDc' Columbia lUver, at____________ .. _ __ _ ' ..; __ 51 IC"" Bridge, D. C., FrancU SeoU, . apllropri&tion for ~ upeDIIe8__ 657 KTarmstroBot (talk) of COlt of·bridges on uveraea Highway from, to themalnland. __________ ._____ 591 Iie1apoo A,..,er. Kam., . appropdation for .support, ete., of ~ **___________________ 222 Kill D..a Hill, Kilt1l Hawk, N. C ., appropriation for monument OD, com- memorating 1lrat euoceuful air- plane flight__________________ 357 Kill lNf,iZ Hill, KiUg Hawk. N. C .- C On. ~.. .. COllgl'ellllioD&l committee to at~d un- . veiUng ot memorial to Wilbur and orvwe Wright for airplane ftIIbt,al.-.. ___ ~______________ _ 1020 lCtftg, BdtDGrd J., late a ReprumtotiH in Conrr"', ' deficiuc01:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)__~!--~ 1623 King,Former Vice Preaident William BtV"UI, appropriation for tablet at Clinton, N. C., in eommemoration 01.._ _ 1378 tablet to be erected ~ commemoration of, at his birthplace, Clinton, N. C_-" ____ .. _....'___________ • __, 719 ground to be furnished by: the town.. _ 719 subj~tTarmstroBot (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)_~f_~:.~: 719 Bum authorUed €or________________ 719 King. JI~n,'B. C., defioieaoy appropriation for 1Ul'V8Y, ete., of battle field oL_________ 929 CODlDliaaion crea~ tor study, ete., of . . battle tleld "f____• _________ .. 412 qualifications of__________________ '13 inspeeUon aod repoft on feuibllity of preeervibg, for hiatorlcal stJlc:ij>,· ·eto _____ ~ _ __ _ _ ___ ___ __ 413 &IIlOWlt autJaoriad for expeDSell___ '13 Ki,."pore, TM...·, appropriation forpublio building_____ 1042 defioiaDq ~ f. eite and KiocG, _&:O~'".lp;d;-:i~: 921 OW4." ' appropriatIOn ,or .aQppQrt. etc., of Indians at_______ ~ 223,1584 Kiowa,CttrMmCIN, Gntl A~ I~flII, Okla., appropriatiOR fort IlUPport, etc. _ __ _ 207, 1534 for ~t w, from oil royalties truat fund ___ ~"" _____ __ • __ _ 207,1569 forlOhool, ForUIilL_ ._ - __ ___ __ __ _ 1578 deficJency ~ for attorney's fees. - from oil royalties trust f;:;;d_, _. _ ....... _____ ._;..________ 18 for pa~Id to, from. oU. royalties trustfund___________ ' -_ __ _ _ __ _ 1M2 Kiowa, etc., Indi4n Hospital, fJkl&•• defioieBcy appropriatioq .for coutruc- tion,eto ______________ ~-- 1642 KiotDG l~ A~, Otia., . boys' dorDli!ol'J' authorised at River- .aide Indian -School, near Ana- darko_______________________ 401 amou.t - autborUed. ~ be appro- prJated____________________ .:_ 401 Kutring.,-, J oh~ B., . . appropriation for monthly payments to_____________ .. ______ ~ _ _ ~ 353, 1374 name placed on yellow f~ver honor roll and-presontedgold medaL __ ._ _ _ 1409 to receive $125 monthly_____________ 1410 KitalJp Cov.nCr/, WGlh., . . bridge authorized acroea Agate P8IlIl, connecting Bainbridge Island with mainlab.d iIl.____________ 1447 Kiltannitlf1, PG., " bridse authOrised aoross Allegheny River, /lot____________________ 117 time extended for bridgin, Allegheny Kit.tf/ Ha!t:ek. r., 12M appropriation for monument on Kill Devil Hill, ~ -QOJDJBemOrate first sl'ocessful airplane flight_______ 357
 * py,.~ __ 1526

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1902

 :uIDEX. Kitty HGwk, N. C .- Continued. Paae•• deficieucy ~ropriation for JDODWDellt on Kill Devil Hill, to aommein- orate first successful ~e Con-~oi.im1ttee--to--be";.p: .1666 pointed to attend unveilins of memoria,l to Wilbur and Orville Wr:laht at, for airplane flight at KID Devil Hill_______________ 1020 Kivell, KGU&leen W., deficiency appropriation for services..__ 2 KlGmath. Agency, Oreg.,, appropriation for support, etc., of Indi- ans .t______________ 223, 1571, 1584 for &gency buildinp_______________ 1584 KlGmGth .Falle, Oreg.. apprgpriation forpub!ic building______ 1042 deficiency appropriatlOll for .me and bunding_____________________ 921 KlGmatl IftfliGn BuerPGlion, Oreg., appropriation for maintenance, etc.. of miIeeI!aneoua irription. projects OD __________________ .: . ____ 214, 1575 deficieacy appropriation for fonN4ln8ect . . controL _____________________ 900 sum from tribal funds autlloriae4 for General CouncIl, maintahdng tribal organization. ew________ 1439 visit of delegation to Washington, etc__________________________ 1439 procuring evidence in pendins auits, etc__________________________ 143' KlGmoUa 1. GtioR ProJecl, Oreg.- Coli/., appropri:tfOlllor mamtenaoce, .tc., Of_ 229, 1591 refUllds to lessees ~ Tulet Lake mar- fP:oallaDda--- 229,1591 Klein, Ru;hartl H_, may bridge Susquehanna River, at Liverpool, Pa_ _______________ 1319 Knoz Cot.m4'. Ten ... , bridge authorized &CroSS TeIlll8lle6 River, in ____________________ 418 Kno:x: Creek Railway Compo..y, may construct two bridges acroa Tug Fork· of Big_ Sandy River near Devon, W. Va., with Norfoik and Western Railway Company ____ 137 Knozvilk, Ten,,-, may bridge TennesSee River, at IJen- ley Street____________________ 1172 Koehl, Hermann, distinguished flying cross to be pre- sented to Ehrenfried Gunther von .Huuefeld, Jam. C. Fits- Maurice, and, for first airplane nonstop flighli from Europe to North America_______________ 482 Kokomo, Ind., deficiu~ appropriation for pubUc Kooshar!!:1:/i;J.;;;.;,;:--- 1658 lands set aside for, at Koosharem, Utah_ 162 Koosharem, Utsh, . lands set aside in vicinity of, for Koos- harem Band of Indians________ 16i Kootenai IndiGn AUotmenta, Idaho, appropriation for reclamation projects on__________________________ 1574 agreement for drainage of, authorised with drainage dittricta including axe&_________________________ 938 apportionment of share of costs_____ 938 Installment paymentB.._ _ __ _ __ __ _ _ 938 54835°-29-PT 1-120 Kootenai Indian AUocm..; .IdtJho-Oon. agreement for draiDNe 01; payments withlleld if work not u. accord- anee with oontr• .c&plaDi" _____ _ proportionate ahare of eost to be borne by IDdiaa Jtnds; Jba1ta- tiOD_~-.-~--- !elmbursement of amount to be ap- r~o~!:J.TarmstroBot (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)___ lien created ~ JaDdB, but Dot enforceable, whlletitleinIndians_ ~on.~ htP~tiv. of Sec- re~, ~ CODtraet matters____ _ Indian laIids 1)0'.· subl«lt to diatrict .law "DiU. ~ titJe becoJDel . .~t. __ .N~ ____ . ________ ~ __ Kootenai Ri_, 10011.0, p~ Aupafuatlon, for Aood oon- .: trolot.-- ~oeeiUlkoJ 11'1 . .. . deficiency aptl!CJPriatlon for pubUo, . bUQdi,I)B(·af....- ______________ _ KrGul, Geor,. B., . appointment authorized of, as oaptain el IDlQtQr_________________ _ L. L Boata, A~,. . . 938 939 939 -939 939 939 1164 1658 P\lrc~ oreoDaiructlon of two, author- l&ed______________________ 718 L Strm $B., I). C., ' .. . approprlaliion for' pavbur. ete., South . aapte} Streit to rr~ Plaoe; from ~ t.- fllDd_________654 LA Cr~, 'Wia., . . ., appropriation for flah culturaltltation at. 1129 for. &!lCl~8ite~d~ publio bundlnlat_~ 179 ,fA;a F~ ~ 4000, GfJ., amount autho~!!r Pl'Tins. an ap- .~ ~ . .!!.'. C1Uckunaqa and equa1...~t:'!oa~iiteci-bY 493 Georgia, etc__________________ 493 titJoto. aDd IDIiDteDaaoe by.. Georgia, La FG".:.~Q,,~u1red.. 494 deficienCy approprl.ation for paving .GOVernJDent RoI4 from Lee and Gordon'. Mm to________ ·_ _ _ _ _ _ 929 Labor ~. COftCiliGlioaol appropgatiqillorcoD1P1iss1o.:er.,etc_ 105, 1135 deficiency appropriatioR for commie- ,BiQ!¥l'II.I! etq..__________________ 1621 Labor Or,anuatitml, . exempt'from iDCIometu-' _____ ~______ 812 Labor Saving I>mcu, POBtal Berviu, . appropriation for. __ .. __ ..,_ ._ .. _ __ _ _ 192, 1054 LalioT SallingMachi,,", etc., appropriation for purchase, etc., Treas- ury ».pa.rtm(mt___ • ____ ___ 164, 1029 defic~y .ppropriation for, 'treasury J)~ent--.-.- 915 lAbor 8t~ .BurBGu, .D~ oj appropriatioia for CommiIBioner, a.nd office pereonneL ___________ 106,1136 traveling expenseS of special &guts etc_______________________ 106, 1136 traveq expeIlll88, officers, etc_ __ 106, 1136 materials for reports, etc.; local specialagents_____________ 106,1136 attendance.at meetings_______ 106.1137

�


text: Beaubien v. Beaubien

title: Beaubien v. Beaubien


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1903

 olii INDEX. Labor &atilhca Bu,...", DeporllMN oJ Pqe. LcI6of--Conttnued. . deficienoyappropriation for aalaries___ 907 for milcellaneous expeD8e8_ 907, 1618, 1621 for salaries, 1929 _____________ ~____ 1685 La.c du I'lAMlieGu Almer, WU., appropri.tion for support, etc., of In- dians at__________________ 223,1584 Ladd, JfJd P.,, may bridge Lake Champlain, East Al- burs to West Swanton, Vt_____ 1506 LalGr" Iftd." . ' . deficienoy appropriation for publict building at___________________ 1658 LG!GJ/ett. NGlioniJl, PtJf'1c, M •• , appropriation. for admlnietration, etc_Hi97, 234 acceptance of Janda donated for ex- extension of__________ .: ._ ,__ ____ __ 1083 name ehanpdto Aoadla National' Park_____ ... ________ '______ - 1083 Water Power Act not applicable to____ 1083 LaGuardia, B~ I'iMeUo H., . deficiency appropriation for C9Dtested election expeJllel!l- _ • __ ..: ___ • ___ 884 Laguna Dotll, , canal AUthori.ed for oonneOting, etc., with Imperial and coachella Valleys, Calif., entirely within United States, under provisions oflJoulder Oanyon Project Act. _ 1057 La,una, •.,lfulio,.., N. Ma., appropriation for irrigation .yet JIll for' J'eP!&yJbeDt;..;.---;.-:- 2{3, 115715 La,una IMiG" &mGIoriUtll, N. Mu., appropriation lor mainteDanoe, etc., of' X-ray ~uipment.:. 221,1581 Lak. Atsdu, 8. lMAi., deficiency appI'OJJtfatfoD for spDlway, etc.; unexpended balance reap- propriated ________________ 21~ 1641 Lak. Borne' &. I .cHe BOIJrti, granted right of way through Chal- mette National Cemetery, La., for a new levee_______________ 997 Lake CAampl4ift, appropriation for survey, etc., of watel'll of, etc____________________ 358,1379 agreemcnt of New York and Vermont eoneenteci to~or creating Lake ~=l;:~____ _ _01:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC) 120 bridge authorised &eI'OIII, between Crown Point, N. Y ., and Chim- DAfi Point, Vt________________ 62
 * rJ0U8:01:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC):_4, 1m

between Rouaes Point, N. Y ., and AlbUl'l, Vt___________________ 1178 time extended for bridging, at East Alb~ Vt___________________ 11533 at Roullel Point, N. Y.____________ 11532 Lak. CAamplcrift B~ Commurion, agn>ement 01 New York and Vermont for creating, to construct bridge aeroeelAite,Champlain________ 120 Lake CountJ/, Fla., adjustment of disputes and' claims for publio lands In arising from faulty surveys, ;to ___________ _ patents to eettIel'll, etc ___________ _ rights of poeee!l8Ol'I preserved____ _ 619 619 619 not lese than appraised value to be charged_ __ _ _ __ _________ _____ 619 ad1ustment by exchanges author- ized..___________ __________ __ __ _ 619 Lake CountJ/, Fla.- Continued. p .... right acquired subsequent to December . 23, not reeognized _________ .. __ _ 619 acceptance of conveyances, etc_______ 619 appraieal__________________________ 620 town site survey of lots, at town of Tava~_____________________ 620 patent to county of courthouse site_ __ 620 town site provisions extended to Tav~_____________________ 620 purchases allowed actual posses- 801'1_________________________ 620 to other towns in area_____________ 620 Lake County, Ind., , ma.y bridge Grand Calumet River, at East Chicago, Ind____________ 114 may reconstruct bridge acro88 Grand Calumet River, East Chicago and Gary, Ind________________ 1475 at Gary, Ind _____________________ 1475 Lake Denmark Naval Ammunition Depot, N.J., appropriation for two magazine build· ings, etc _________________ ~___ 636 for replacing works destroyed by explosion_ ____________ _____ ___ 1464 deficiency appropriation for removing, etc., projectiles from, to Pica- tinny ArsenaL________________ 36 Lake Memphremagog, bridge authorized across an arm of, at Ji~, Vt_________________ 297 Lak. Michi(ItJ", bridge authorised across, at mouth of Chicago River, In Chicago, I1L_ 1078 Lake oJ the Wootla, Minn., appropriation fot survey, etc_ _____ 358, 1379 deficieMy appropriation for purchase of flowage easements, etc., for protecting shores oL__________ 930 flowage easements for protective works on lands bordering, Warroad and Rainy Rivei'll, to be pur- chased or condemned__________ 431 I in accordance with Minnesota PJ'- ~ngs- 431 witness fees etc., assessed against United States________________ 432 all prior claims for damages by arti- ficial outlets of the Lake to be investigated, etc., by Secretary of War_______________________ 432 hearin~s, etc., to determine 1088 sus- taUled_______________________ 432 report of result to Congrll8S_ _______ 432 claims barred if not presented In 30 days________________________ 432, Lak. Sabine, bridge authorized across, at Port Arthur, Tex__________________ 609 time extended for bridging, at Port Arthur, Tex__________________ 1524 Lake Superior, appropriation for survey of connect- ing watel'll, etc., of, with Lake of the Woods______________ 358,1379 Lake Wonh, Te:e., deficiency appropriation for establish- ing fish cultural station at_____ 898 Lakehur8t Naf1al Air Station, N. J., erection of memorial chapel at, per- mitted by American Legion____ 1478 site, etc., on approvai of Secretary of the Jiavy ____________________ 1478 accepted as unconditional gift______ 1478

�


text: Talk:Beaubien v. Beaubien

title: Talk:Beaubien v. Beaubien


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1904

 INDEX. elill Lakeland, Fla., Pap. deficiency appropriation for post office extelWon, etc_________________ 1658 Lamar Lumber Company may bridge Bogue (jmtto River, in Saint Tammany Parish, La_ ___ 753 removal of, when abandoned_ ______ 753 Lancarilr County Pa., time extend;;d for bridging Susque- hanna River, between Wrights- ville and Columbia, by York Countyand__________________ 113 Lanca&ter, Pa., appropriation for public building___ 179, 1042 Lancalller, S •.C., deficiency appropriation for public Land BTarmstroBot (talk)/e:!;41~:.-- 33 establishment of, etc________________ 1558 Land for Military Pur'JKNIU (.ee Real Property, Army). Land Grant CoUtigee, etc., appropriation for study, etc., of, by Education Bureau_________ 238, 1602 Landa, etc., appropriation for custody of, under Treasury Department ______ 186,1048 Lands, etc., D. C., condemnation of private, for municipal uses_________________________ 1437 for use of the United Statea________ 1415 Landa in Severalty to IndiaM, appropriation for surveying, allotting, etc., on ___________________ 205, 1868 use for Indians in Arizonaand New Mexico restricted___ ~ ______ 206,1568 allottee, dying before end of trust period, without making a will, legal. heirs of, to be ascertained pate!l :t:,~-an~iTarmstroBot (talk)i-to -oo~: 161 petent·heirs__________________ 161 if one or more heirs incompetent, lands to be sold______________ 161 partition of shares of competent, may be set aside and patents in fee issued therefor____________ 161 sales of allotments under rules, etc____ 161 deposit required; failure to comply with returns to cause forfeit of amount paid_______________ 161 balance payable in installments, forfeited, together with interest thereon______________________ 161 forfeiture to inure to benefit of heirs__________________ _______ 161 proceeds of sale paid to competent heirs_______ _____ ______ ____ ___ 161 held in trust for incompetent heirs_ 161 certificate of competency may be issued to Indian or heir having patent in fee with alienation restric- tion_ ________________________ 161 restriction removed by_____________ 161 money coming into hands of Indian agent, etc., as cuatodiBIl may be deposited in bank.. ... ___ ___ ___ __ 161 bond required of bank, subject to ap- proval of Secretary of the Inte- rior_________________________ 161 Land8~pe and Vegetable Gardeninp, appropriation for studies in florIculture, etc__________________________ 552 Langin Field, Moundtville, W. Va., appropriation for paying claima for property damages, etc., due to .Army airplane accident at____ _ Langley Field, Va., Army Air Corpa, amount authorized for constructing heating plant for hangar______ _ construction authorbed of buildings at_ 1434 130 748, 1302 Langley Junior High School D. C., deficiency appropriation for completing equipment, etc.; available until June 30, 1929__ _ _____________ 890 portion of site of McKinley High and, available for & bathing pool_ ___ 583 Langley M emonol Aeronautical Laboratory, appropriation for maintenance, etc____ 1240 Langtry, Tez., bridge au~horized across Rio Grande. at 983 consent of Mexico required_ _ _ _ _ _ __ 983 Lansing, 10WG, bridge authorized acl'OU Mississippi River, at_________. .. __ __ __ __ __ _ 280 Lansing, Mich., expen services in construction of Weather Bureau building at, allowed______________________ 11 Laredo, Ta., Fir" SMtIJ Bank a'ld Truat Campan,. deficiency appropriati9n for refunds to_ 23, 23 Ltu Animoi Rifler, etc. compact between Colorado and New Mexico authorized for dlvialon of waters of._________________ 1502 Laa Vegaa, NBfJ., deficiency appropriation for publio buil~ at___________________ 1658 Ltu.en VolcaniC National Park, Calif., appropriation for commissioner __ ___ __ 111 0 for administration, etc_________ - 234,1597 acceptance of exclusive jurisdiction over area of, ceded by' California____ 463 rights reserved to the State_ _ _ _____ 463 application ~. United States laws_ _ _ 463 extradition of f\ldtivea from justice_ 463 assigned to CalitOrDia northern judi- cial district__________________ 463 punishment of offenders against State laws_ .. _._ _____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 463 prohibition against unauthorized hunt- eVldence or vio~tiollB_____________ 464 punishment for specified violations 01 provisions hereof, etc__________ 464 forfeiture of guns, traps, etc., mega1ly used_________________________ 464 commissioner of district court to be ap- ~inted for .jurisdiction In_ _____ 464 judicial powers of, in violations of rules,etc____·_________________ 464 appeals to district court_________ 465 procedure in criminal cases; ·baiL 465 service of process by marshal for the distrlct______________________ 465 summary arrests, if taken in acts of violating law_________________ 465 pay of; residence required ____ - -- - - 465 payment, etc., of United States fees, etc____________________________ 465 deposit of fines and coste with clerk of district court_________________ 465 acceptance of cession________________ 465
 * :be"PNcriiied::::' ::

�


text:
Beaubien v. Beaubien/Opinion of the Court

THIS was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of Michigan.

It was a bill filed on the equity side of the court, by John Baptiste Beaubien and twenty-one others, aliens and residents of Canada, against Antoine Beaubien and one hundred and twenty-seven others, thirteen of whom were citizens of Michigan and residents of Detroit. The rest of the defendants were admitted to be parties by order of the court.

The complainants began the history of their title as early as 1745, when the Governor and Intendant of the Territory gave to their ancestor, Beaubien, a concession of land of three arpens in front on Lake Erie, by forty arpens in depth; and afterwards, in 1747, the same persons granted to one Barois a concession of two arpens in front by forty arpens in depth adjoining the above. They then traced the title down, as stated in the opinion of the court.

Some of the defendants demurred to the bill, and the rest pleaded that they were bona fide purchasers, without notice.

In 1857, the court passed the following decree:

'This cause having been brought on to be heard on the demurrer of the above defendants and others, to the amended bill of complaint, and the plea of the Right Reverend Peter Paul Le Fevre and Theodore Williams, claiming to be bona fide purchasers for a valuable consideration, without notice, of the lands and premises owned and claimed by them on the Antoine Beaubien and Lambert Beaubien farms, described in the bill of complaint and in said plea, and the said demurrer and plea having been argued by G. T. Sheldon, solicitor and counsel, and W. H. Emmons, counsel for said defendants, and Messrs. Burt and Maynard, counsel for the complainants, and the arguments of counsel having been duly considered, i is ordered, adjudged, and decreed, that the demurrer hereto fore filed of the above defendants, Theodore Williams and the Right Reverend Peter Paul Le Fevre and others, claiming a portion of the lands and premises in the bill of complaint mentioned, as heirs, donees, or otherwise, without valuable consideration, be, and is hereby, sustained; and the said plea of the said defendants, Right Reverend Peter Paul Le Fevre and Theodore Williams, claiming other portions of said lands and premises in their said plea mentioned, as bona fide purchasers for a valuable consideration, without notice, having been argued by the respective counsel, and the arguments of counsel having been duly considered, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed, that the said plea of the said defendants, Peter Paul Le Fevre and Theodore Williams, be, and is hereby, sustained; and that the said bill of complaint of the complainants, as to all said land and premises described and set forth in said plea, be, and is hereby, dismissed.'

From this decree, the complainants appealed to this court.

It was submitted on printed arguments by Mr. Platt Smith for the appellants, and Mr. Carlisle for the appellees, upon a brief filed by himself, Mr. Emmons, and Mr. Russell.

After Mr. Smith had argued that the bill set forth a complete title, and that the facts charged were admitted by the pleadings, he proceeded to notice the question of the lapse of time.

Lapse of time is not made a question by the pleadings; the court will not presume for the defendants what they do not claim for themselves.

Anthony Bledsoe was killed by the Indians, 20th July, 1788; he made a will, devising 'my estate to be equally divided amongst my children; to each of my daughters a small tract of land.' He left five sons and six daughters. There were 6,280 acres of land in Tennessee; the executors assigned 320 acres to each of the girls, and made deeds. Polly, the eighth child, in 1799, being then a minor, married Weatherhead, she and her husband took possession of the 320 acres that had been assigned to her. In 1801, the residue of the lands was divided among the sons. In 1818, Polly Weatherhead and her husband sold the 320 acres that had been assigned to her, and they removed to Mississippi. In 1843, Mr. Weatherhead died. In 1846, Polly Weatherhead brought suit for her portion of the whole tract. The boys and their grantees had made valuable improvements, built brick houses, &c. The suit was brought fifty-eight years after the death of the ancestor, fifty-three years after the partition among the girls, forty-five years after that among the boys. She maintained her suit.

Weatherhead's Lessee v. Baskerville et al., 11 Howard, 329, 359, 360.

In Stackpole v. Davoren, an account of rents and profits of an estate was decreed, after an adverse possession of fifty years.

1 Bro. P. C., 9, referred to in Hill on Trustees, 265.

In a recent case, Sir C. Pepys, M. R., set aside a purchase by a steward at an undervalue after an interval of forty-seven years.

2d June, 1835, affirmed 11 Cl. and F., 714.

Hill on Trustees, 265, where reference is given to many other cases of like tendency.

A case is reported in 5 Sim., 640. There the defendants had been in possession for seventy years; and to a bill filed by the remainder man to recover the estate, a plea was put in, stating that adverse possession of the property had been held during the whole time; and that the rents and profits had been received. The vice chancellor overruled the plea, and, on an appeal taken, his decision was affirmed by Chancellor Brougham.

Mylne and Keen, 738, cited in 16 Pet., 468.

In 1747, Edward Charlton, under whom plaintiffs claimed, being indebted to John Rooke by a judgment, it was agreed between them that Rooke should be put into possession of the rents and profits of the estate in question, until the debt should be satisfied, which agreement was carried into effect, and Rooke entered into and remained in possession till 1752. Edward Charlton, being at that time indebted to John Reed, under whom defendants claimed, Reed made an agreement with Rooke, for an assignment of what remained due by Charlton to Rooke; under this agreement, Reed entered into possession, and he and his family continued in possession up to 1821. Edward Charlton died in 1767, leaving a widow and a son, then under age. The son married in 1778, and died in 1797, leaving a son, an infant. The question was, whether, under the circumstances, a conveyance either from Edward Charlton or William Charlton to the Reed family might be presumed. Under the instruction of Bayley, J., the jury found for the plaintiff. Abbot, C. J., says: 'I am clearly of opinion that the direction was according to law. In cases where the original possession cannot be accounted for, and would be unlawful unless there had been a grant, the rule may perhaps be different; and all of the cases cited are of that description. Here the original possession is accounted for, and is consistent with the fact of there having been no conveyance.' Bayley, J., says: 'The deeds of 1747 and 1752 were both produced, and if there had been a conveyance, it would probably have been produced also.' Holroyd, J., says: 'Here the original enjoyment was consistent with the fact of there having been no conveyance, for it was in satisfaction of a debt. The true question was presented to the jury.

Doe, d. Fenwick v. Reed, 5 Barn. and Ald., 232.

7 English Common Law, 79.

Both parties claim by descent from John Ormsby, sen., who died in Pennsylvania in 1805. The deceased had a son, Oliver, who survived him, and who administered on his estate; and a daughter, Sidney, who married Isaac Gregg. He had also a son, called John Ormsby, jun., who married in the Mississippi country, and died in 1795. Mary Swayze, the wife of the plaintiff, is the daughter of this son, and was an infant at his decease. In 1807, Oliver Ormsby gave bond as administrator of his father's estate; he never settled the administration account. In 1826, as administrator, he confessed a judgment for 467 dollars in favor of Messrs. Penns. He allowed the lands of his father to be sold on execution on this judgment; they were bid off by Mr. Ross, the attorney for the Messrs. Penns, at the sum of three thousand dollars, Mr. Ross declaring that neither he nor his clients wanted the lands, but that he should allow them to be redeemed for the amount of the judgment and the costs. In 1831, four years after the sheriff's sale, Oliver Ormsby paid Ross 523 dollars, and took a deed from him of the lands; he receipted to the sheriff, as administrator, for the three thousand dollars, after deducting what he had paid to Ross. Mrs. Swayze brought suit in 1833, and recovered; the court held that the sheriff's deed to Ross, and the deed from Ross to Oliver Ormsby, did not stand in her way.

Swayze v. Burke, 12 Peters, 11.

'The executor of an officer in the Virginia line on the continental establishment obtained a certificate from the Executive Council of Virginia, as executor, for four thousand acres of land, in the Virginia reserve, in the State of Ohio, and afterwards sold and assigned the same. Entries were made, and warrants issued in favor of the assignees, and a survey was made, under one of the warrants, in favor of one of the assignees, a bona fide purchaser, who obtained a patent from the United States for the land. It appeared that the executor had no right, under the will, to sell the land to which the testator was entitled. The patent was granted in 1818, and the patentee had been in possession of the land from 1808. The heirs of the officer entitled to the land for military services, in 1839, some of them being minors, filed a bill to compel the patentee to convey the land held by him to them. Held that the patentee was a purchaser, with notice of the prior title of heirs, and that he was bound to make the conveyance asked from him.' 'No principle is better established than that a purchaser must look to every part of the title which is essential to its validity.'

Brush v. Ware, 15 Peters, 93.

The plea is no bar to the matters set up in the bill.

The plea of a purchaser for valuable consideration, without notice, should aver that the person from whom he purchased had such an interest in the property as entitled him to convey it to the defendant.

2 Daniels Ch. Pr., 687.

Head v. Edgerton, 3 P. Williams, 281.

Daniels v. Davison, 16 Ves., 252.

Craig v. Leiper, 2 Yerger, 196.

The plea traces title from the United States. But this is not enough, for a pre-existing title is distinctly averred and set forth in the bill; and it has been repeatedly held that a patent from the United States does not affect a pre-existing title in a third person.

City of New Orleans v. Armas and Cucullu, 9 Pet., 236.

United States v. Arredondo, 6 Pet., 738.

The bill charges that this patent was obtained by the fraud of Antoine Beaubien, the patentee; that the patent was based on the French titles under which plaintiffs claim, which patent, so far as it purports to convey anything to said Antoine, is fraudulent and void as against complainants; the bill also charges that defendants or some of them have possession of the documents of the original title. The plea does not undertake to deny the fraud, or that the patent was obtained on the claim founded on the original French titles, or that the defendants have not the original title papers; all these should be negatived by averment in the plea.

2 Daniels Ch. Pr., 691.

Possession to be adverse must be in good faith, and not a precarious possession, such as a possessio fratris, or a fraudulent possession. Domat.

'And it has been held, that if a widow remains in possession of land after her husband's death, and marries again, and she and her husband continue in possession for more than the time limited for the right of entry, neither she nor he can set up the statute against an ejectment by the children of the first husband. [Cook v. Nicholas, 2 Watts and S., 27.] There was a very rigid application of the law, in this respect, in a very modern case, in the Court of King's Bench in Ireland, in which it was held, that where, on the death of a father intestate, seized of lands in fee, his second son enters without title, such entry is deemed for the use of the eldest son; and the statute, therefore, does not run against such eldest son, the possession of the second son being his possession. [Dowdall v. Byrne, Batt. (Irish) R., 373.] The real principle, to be extracted from all the cases, the court said, is, that the possession of the younger brother, so entering, is the possession of the heir, who, therefore, cannot be affected by length of time, upon the supposition of a possession adverse to him; and, on this principle, the court found an answer to the argument that the circumstances or motives of the party taking possession ought to be left to the jury, because the question is, not why the one person took possession, but why the other submitted to it; and in the absence of any proof to the contrary, it must be intended that he did so because (as the law intends) it was taken for him.'

Angell on Limitations, p. 402.

The points made by the counsel for the appellees will be given, although the argument is inserted upon those only which were decided by the court.

I. The claim of the complainants is barred by the acts of Congress and the action under them, by which Antoine Beaubien obtained a patent.

II. The claim in this case is barred by the statute of limitations.

That this defence, as well as lapse of time generally, may be taken by demurrer.

Petro v. Massachusetts, 15 Peters, 233.

Story Eq. Pleading, secs. 503, 506, 761.

4 Wash., 631, 632; 2 Sch. and Lef., 637.

6 Sims, 51; 4 Johns. Ch., 299.

2 Ves., jun., 94; 1 Johns. Ch., 46.

1 Bald., 418; 19 Vesey, 180.

7 Paige, 195; 11 Eng. Ch., 68.

The bill in this case contains no sufficient averment to avoid the application of the statute, as we shall suggest more fully hereafter.

The two acts of May 15, 1820, (R. Laws of Mich. 1833, p. 570, sec. 6,) and of Nov. 15, 1829, (R. Laws 1833, p. 408,) and especially the latter, bar all claim in this case.

R. Laws 1833, p. 408, act of 1829, provides that 'No writ of right or other real action, no action of ejectment or other possessory action, of whatever name or nature, shall hereafter be sued, prosecuted, or maintained, for the recovery of any lands, tenements, or hereditaments, if the cause of action has now accrued, unless the same be brought within ten years after the passing of this act, any law, usage, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.'

For the application of this statute to past causes of action, see laws of Michigan 1843, p. 43, declaring that all causes shall be determined by the law applicable to it, when the Rev. Stat. of 1838 were passed. See, also, judicially so holding, Douglass Mich. Rep., 307, Lesley v. Cramer.

We need not explain the causes which called for this subsequent legislation and decision. It is now clear the law of 1829 is that which controls the right to sue in this case.

It is hardly necessary to cite the following cases to show, that where the statute commences to run, no subsequent disability will arrest it.

15 Johns., 169.

1 Sugden on Vendors, 389.

3 Brod. and Bing., 217.

3 Johns. Ch., 140, and cases cited.

Plowden, 353; 4 Mass., 282.

C. and Hill, notes, 320.

And most particularly do we ask attention to the decisive fact that in this statute of 1829 there is no saving clause. The bar is general and universal. The non-resident is bound equally with the resident, the infant with the adult, and we therefore need not stop to discuss the particular circumstances of each complaint.

That where the Legislature have made no exceptions, the courts can make none.

1 Sugden on Vendors, 389.

4 Tenn., 307, per Shippen arguendo.

And many other cases cited elsewhere in this argument.

This court has repeatedly recognised this rule.

Bank of the State of Alabama v. Delton, 9 How., 522.

McIver v. Ragan, 2 Wheat., 25.

Baron v. Howard, 20 Howard, 25.

If, then, this action may be said to have arisen at any time before 1828, it was barred November 10, 1839.

When, within the meaning of this rule, did it arise?

The bill says Antoine Beaubien was in possession with his brother before 1800. That he presented a sole claim before the board in 1804, and did not succeed, because he failed in his attempt to prove a conveyance to himself under the French title. See Schedule A, of the bill. He then, in 1804, claimed sole ownership; attempted to prove it. This was open and notorious. A public record is made of it. All had notice of it. There is no denial that all the co-heirs had such notice; and there is no pretence that he agreed expressly to take in trust for them. This, then, was a hostile sole claim. But the bill further says, that again, in 1807, he presented another claim as sole occupant and improver. He procured witnesses to swear he was such. It was judicially determined he was such in a proceeding in rem, which impleaded all the world. Not only is there no averment that he agreed to hold for the other heirs, but there is not one fact or circumstance stated which could lead them to believe so. The naked, meagre, and unlawyer-like expression is used, that they 'supposed' he would so hold. Our citations hereafter will show how fully insufficient this is, in order to save any statute of limitations, even under the English rule, and much less to avoid this one. Indeed he could not, without the aid of perjury, have proved in his own name, if he were not the sole occupant.

1 Harrington Mich. Rep., 130, Barnard v. Bougard.

These facts are abundant to show a hostile, adverse holding. But further still, he conveys the half to Lambert's heirs in 1818. This surely is an exercise of ownership. There is no denial of full knowledge of all these facts by all the co-heirs at the time they took place. They all lived together within the area of a mile. The court will take judicial notice that the town in Canada, where some of them reside, adjoins the town of Detroit, where Antoine and Lambert lived.

In 1840, the bill admitted they knew the fraud. Even under a loose rule, which would give them ten years from this discovery, the legal bar would be complete in 1850, five years before this bill was filed. But there is no such rule. They must be prompt in filing the bill after discovery. Under a twenty years' statute they cannot, because there is fraud, delay forty years, if there is twenty years before the discovery. But fraud is an excuse only where they are diligent the moment they discover the fraud; otherwise, their rights are barred.

But, what is controlling here is, the bill concedes all the original heirs knew the facts. Numerous decisions show this is sufficient for our protection. There is no concealment, no agreement, no act to mislead, imputed to Antoine Beaubien. The naked case is stated, of a right in six heirs, who live in the neighborhood of their brother, having equal intelligence and means, having full knowledge of his open claims, his procuration of title, his sales, his exclusive occupancy without one word of claim on their part, or concession of right on his, from 1800 down to 1840, when, for the first time in forty years, the great-grandchildren of the original heirs began to 'suspect' that the grandchildren (and their grantees) of the co-heir of their ancestors intend to claim this land as their own! Such a bill is but a delusion. It is demurable. It contains no sufficient reasons to avoid the application of the statute.

We submit the act of 1829 is a complete bar.

But the act of May 15, 1820, is equally a bar. In the circumstances of this case, the disabilities of non-residence, infancy, and coverture, are wholly immaterial. There can be no successive disabilities, either in the same person, or set up in succeeding heirs. If the disabilities of the first takers are removed, the heirs must sue within ten years or twenty years, (according to the statute thereafter.) Thus, if A, an heir, be a non-resident, and dies, and his heir is also a non-resident, the disability of the latter cannot be added to that of his ancestor, but he must sue within the time limited after the death of the first taker; otherwise, statutes of limitation would be perpetual.

The act of 1820 limits the right of action to twenty years, and the saving section is as follows:

'This act shall not extend to bar any infant, person imprisoned, beyond seas, &c., &c., from bringing either of the actions before mentioned within the term before set and limited for bringing such actions, calculating from the time such impediment shall be removed.'

Plaintiff resided out of, and had never been within the State of Ohio, and his ancestor, and those under whom the ancestor claimed, had in their lifetime been in the same situation; and the question was, whether the exception in the law (which was like ours) saved the rights of the plaintiff, who and whose ancestors had been successively and continually under the technical disability of non-residence.

The court cites and analyzes Plowd., 358; 6 East, 80; 4 Miss., 182; 2 Conn., 27; and 3 Johns. Ch., 129-which is an elaborate review of all the old cases-and hold that the action was barred immediately on the death of the ancestor or first taker, provided twenty years had then elapsed. That as the statute provided for no period after that for the heir to sue, and saved the rights only of the person to whom the right accrued, there was no mode in which by mere construction the heir could be allowed any time after the lapse of twenty years. That the person to whom the right accrued might have sued within twenty years after his disability removed. But this right did not accrue to the heir. Page 517 says, successive disabilities cannot be set up where they exist in the same person, any more than when one man attempts to protect himself by one in himself after the removal of one in his ancestor.

The doctrine was strictly applied in a case in equity in the same volume, 10 Ohio, 524, Ridley v. Wethman, where a bill was dismissed on the plea of the statute of limitations, when it appeared that the complainants sought to avail themselves of successive disabilities of non-residence.

The court, in 16 Howard, 247, Thorp v. Raymond, held that where a right of entry accrued to a person who was under disability, and so continued until his death, the statute began to run immediately upon his death, although the heir was under disability. This under New York statute similar to ours.

The non-residence of the complainants is immaterial, even if the act of 1829 contained any exceptions, which it does not; under this principle, the law of 1820 equally bars the whole action.

The court will not fail to perceive the disgraceful vagueness and studied evasion with which the bill is drawn.

It makes no averment that these complainants have been continuously out of the Territory and the State of Michigan. Such it is notorious is not the fact. They all reside within half a mile of Detroit, and, though in Canada, are and have for years, as have all their ancestors, been weekly there. Hence the statement that they have 'resided' in Canada.

This may be true, and still, if they have been within the State, the running of the statutes will be conceded. No authority need be cited for this. The bill should have averred that the complainants had not been within the State. See the common precedents of pleading the old exception of 'beyond seas.'

This, then, answers the pretence that some of the complainants are within the exceptions of the statute of 1820.

Still, we repeat, that of 1829 has no exceptions.

That our holding is adverse, so as to start the running of the statute, whether it be said there is a trust or a tenancy in common, we cite a few decisions. They show equally what we cannot take time distinctly to argue, that this is a case where the presumption of a grant is full and clear.

Still, the main object is to show an adverse holding within the statute of limitations.

4 Mason, 326, Prescott v. Nevens.

2 Smith's Leading Cases, 450.

Notes to Taylor v. Horde, in 1 Burr, 60.

Nessun v. Doe, in 1 M. and W., 910.

If a party holds in a character incompatible with the idea of a freehold in another, his holding is adverse. In order to ascertain the character of the holding, courts will look at the parties' conduct while in possession. The cases are very fully cited in 5 Bing. N. C., 161; Eng. Com. Law Rep., 65, Davis v. Lowndes; see per Tindal, Ch. J., page 71; also, pages 72, 73, 74. For the evidence in the case, see page 66.

That a patent from the Government invests the patentee with seizure in law, so that he is considered in actual possession until an ouster by a third person.

2 Smith's Leading Cases, 469.

The patentee's conveyance transfers a like possession to his grantee.

4 Wheat, 215, Burr v. Grottz's Heirs.

2 Smith's Leading Cases, 469.

There need not be an assertion of any previous title, but an assumption of ownership at the time of the entry and during the occupancy, and this is what is meant by its being made 'under claim or color of right.'

Page 472 cites the cases fully, to show that one tenant in common, by claiming to hold as owner of the whole, will constitute an ouster of his co-tenant.

In 24 Wendell, 601, 602, Humbert v. Trinity Church, on page cited It is said: 'Although a man may hold possession rightfully as a tenant in common, and the presumption is that he does so, still the contrary may be shown; and if his conduct be such as to satisfy the mind that he means to hold out his co-tenants, and he does in fact exclude them, this is an ouster, his possession is adverse, and the statute will apply as fully as if he never had any right to claim as a tenant in common.' See the preceding pages, where the facts evincing the claim of title of the defendant are commented on. They are no more decisive than the averments in the present bill.

III. The statute of limitations of Michigan relied on in this case is broader than the English statute, and it is equally a bar in a court of equity as at law. This court under this statute can make no exception in cases of undiscovered fraud.

The English statutes of limitations simply bar certain enumerated legal actions, and none of them therefore apply in terms to proceedings in equity. Hence courts, acting simply from analogy, felt at liberty to make exceptions in cases when conscience demanded it. And as we pass over the cases under the following divisions, the truth of our averment will abundantly appear, that the only reason why courts have made such exceptions, is that there were no words in the statute which literally could be extended to courts of equity.

That the courts can make no exceptoins when the statute makes none, see ante. That infants, feme coverts, and persons beyond seas, are all concluded when not expressly excepted. See Humbert v. Trinty Ch., 24 Wendell, ante, and the cases cited, to show that when the statute applies ex directu, then even fraud makes no difference, and that case goes the length of saying that in cases of concurrent jurisdiction, fraud is no excuse, even in equity, under a statute which in terms did not apply to a court of equity.

But it is not necessary for us to go thus far here. Our statute does apply equally to a court of equity as to that of law. Its language is, 'no real or possessory action, of whatever name of nature,' shall be sustained after ten years from 1829. So is the act also of 1820.

Farmer v. Brooks, 9 Pick., 242; Johnson v. Ames, 11 Pick., 182, are directly in point, holding that a statute like this bound, ex directu, both courts of equity and law alike.

We claim this statute has no exceptions, express or implied, at law or in equity. That the court can engraft none upon it, growing out of the ignorance, infancy, or non-residence of the complainant, or the alleged frauds of the defendants; see authorites cited under II.

Very many decisions fully set forth the reasons of the equity rule in England, as we have stated it. This grows out of the words of their statute, and when one like ours comes up as in 17 Ves., they apply it as they would in an ejectment.

IV. If it is held that this act is to receive the same construction as those which simply bar specifically enumerated legal actions, and that this court will therefore admit the same exceptions to its applications, such as trust and undiscovered fraud, then we say the bill does not set up facts to bring the case within these exceptions, and the remedy is barred by the statute under the general principle applicable to all statutes of limitations.

V. If the complainants contend there was a complete legal title under the French grant, this wholly answers the argument that the statute of limitations does not apply, because the defendants hold in trust, and the complainants were ignorant of the fraud.

VI. The bill does not show a legal title under the French grant.

VII. The plea of bona fide purchasers is a good plea, both in form and substance, and constitutes a perfect bar to the matters set up in the bill.

VIII. The bill does not show or state the citizenship of the several defendants brought in by the amendment thereto, and is therefore fatally defective.

Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of the State of Michigan.

The bill was filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants, claiming to be tenants in common with them in a tract of land now lying in the city of Detroit, each party deriving title from a common ancestor, who made the settlement as early as the year 1745, under a concession from the French Government. The tract contained five arpens in front on Lake Erie, and eighty arpens back. The ancestor, John Baptiste Beaubien, died in 1793, having had the uninterrupted possession of the property from the time of the concession in 1745, leaving a widow and several children. Two of the sons, Antoine and Lambert, resided with their father at the time of his death, and continued in the possession and occupation with their mother till her death, in 1809.

In 1804, Antoine, one of the heirs in possession, applied to the board of commissioners to adjust land claims, under the act of Congress of 1804, to confirm his claim to the land; and which was confirmed accordingly, and a patent issued in 1812. Acts of Congress, 26th March, 1804; 3d March, 1805; 3d March, 1807.

Lambert, the other brother, continued in the joint occupation of the tract till his death, in 1815, and subsequently, in 1818, Antoine conveyed to the heirs of Lambert a moiety of the premises; and the present occupants and defendants are the descendants of the two brothers, or purchasers from them under this title.

The tract constitutes a portion of the city of Detroit, and is averred in the bill to have been worth, at the time of the filing of it in 1855, from half a million to a million of dollars, exclusive of the improvements.

The case was presented to the court below on demurrer to the bill, and on pleas by some of the defendants, as bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration, without notice.

The plaintiffs aver in the bill, in addition to the facts already stated, that they are the descendants of the brothers and sisters of Antoine and Lambert, from whom the title of the defendants is derived, and that Antoine and Lambert and their descendants possessed and occupied the tract in subordination to the right and title of their co-tenants, and that they were permitted to possess and occupy the same in confidence, that they so held the premises for the common benefit of all parties interested. They further aver, that they verily believed that the brothers, Antoine and Lambert, and their legal representatives, were acting in good faith in this respect, until about the year 1840 they discovered, after examination and inquiry into the facts and circumstances, that they intended to cheat and defraud them, and those under whom they claim, of their just rights in the premises.

The bill further states that Antoine, in his lifetime, and his son, who is one of the defendants, and the heirs of Lambert, have conveyed to divers individuals rights in the said tract; that, in some instances, they made donations without consideration; in others, conveyances for a pretended consideration; and that there now are in possession, as heirs, donees, and purchasers of different portions of the premises, several hundred persons, most of whose names are unknown to the plaintiffs, which persons set up claims and pretended rights and interests therein. And further, that neither Antoine nor Lambert's heirs, down to the year 1834, committed any open or notorious act, inconsistent with the rights of the plaintiffs, or in any way disavowed the trust and relation as co-tenant, or of brothers or co-heirs, nor in any manner asserted any title to the land, to the exclusion of their rights.

The court decreed upon the demurrer to the bill, and also upon the pleas, in favor of the defendants.

The case comes before us on an appeal from this decree. Antoine and Lambert, the two sons of J. B. Beaubien, the common ancestor, and those claiming under them, have been in the exclusive possession of the premises in question since 1793, a period of sixty-two years before the commencement of this suit. The plaintiffs and those under whom they claim, during all this time, as averred in the bill, resided in Canada, and, as appears, most of them in the county of Essex, in the neighborhood of the premises. The four hundred arpens which, in 1793, were worth some six or seven thousand dollars, now embrace a portion of the city of Detroit, and are worth, with the improvements, over a million of dollars; and, for aught that is averred in the bill or appears in the case, no right has been set up by them, or by those under whom they claim, to the title or the possession of the premises, until the filing of the bill; no claim to the rents and profits, or to an account as tenants in common, or for partition, or to be admitted to the enjoyment of any right as co-heirs.

The case is one, so far as the title of the plaintiffs is concerned, which depends upon the establishment of an implied trust to be raised by the evidence, and hence falls within that class of cases in which courts of equity follow the courts of law, in applying the statute of limitations. (Kane v. Bloodgood, 7 John. Ch. R., 91; Hovenden v. Annesly, 2 Sch. and Lef., 607.)

There are two acts of limitation in the State of Michigan, either of which bars the claim of the plaintiffs: 1. The act of May 15, 1820, which limits the right of action to twenty years after the same has accrued; and

2. The act of November 15, 1829, which limits the right of entry to ten years, if the cause of action has then accrued.

The language is: 'No writ of right or other real action, no ejectment or other possessory action, &c., shall hereafter be sued, &c., if the cause of action has now accrued, unless the same be brought within ten years after the passage of this act, any law, usage, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.'

There is no saving clause in this as to infants, feme coverts, or residence beyond seas.

The pleader has sought to avoid the operation of the limitation, by an averment of concealment and fraud on the part of the defendants, and those under whom they claim. The plaintiffs aver, 'that, until within the last few years, your orators and oratrixes, and those under whom they claim, verily believed and supposed that the said brothers, Antoine and Lambert, and their legal representatives, were acting in good faith towards them, but that, about the year 1840, they discovered by information, after examination and inquiry into the facts and circumstances of the case, that the said brothers, Antoine and Lambert, and their legal representatives, intended to cheat and defraud them, and those under whom they claim, of their just rights in the premises.'

This averment is too general and indefinite to have the effect to avoid the operation of the statute. The particular acts of fraud or concealment should have been set forth by distinct averments, as well as the time when discovered, so that the court may see whether, by the exercise of ordinary diligence, the discovery might not have been before made. (Stearns v. Page, 7 Howard, 819; Moore v. Greene, 19 ib., 69.)

Here, no acts of fraud or concealment are stated; and the time when even an intention to defraud, which is all that is averred, was discovered, was some fifty years after the exclusive possession of the defendants and those under whom they claim had commenced; and this, although the parties lived in the neighborhood, and almost in sight of the city, which has, in the mean time, grown up on the premises.

We think the statute of limitation applies, and that the decree of the court below should be affirmed.


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1905

 cliv INDEX. z.a- VolcGnic NatioflGl Park, Calif. - Pap. . C~tlnuecL . lands lidded to, tdr admfnfstrative head- ~18~____________________ 466 pI!ol'k. provision. appllcable__ ________ 466 W&tel' Po... Act provisions llot ex- teDded teL___________________ 466 &c:'Ceptanoe' Of title to lands within, val- uable for forest, or reereatioD&1 purpoees---T- - -- - -- .- -- - -- 1443 other lands may be given in exchange 1443 timber lD!'f be aUcnved in exchange; CO~- ___L______________ 1443 accepted ~ added to the Park___ 1443 boundaries of, Dioditled.:,., ____________ 1081 deacriptloilof ne1f; fo~er lan ex- tended to added lailCk_________l082 Water Power Act not applicable____ 108~ excbauge otlaadaauthOlUed for eddi- tiollto___ ~ __________ ... ________ 644 prominent mountain in, to be ~ ! ., l lelltlyDaDl4!d in honor JOhn E. llaker, 4eceued Member:' of CO~---~ 371 Latin Atnm'iaI, . appropria$iOD ;for pPeDIIII 1JIOIIIOf.Ing ClQQUlJerc8 with_____ .-' _.... w;..: 86, 1117 Latvia, 1AtItiMJ. aftd B~ .' appropriati~or miniBter to,..______ 65, 1096 LcvcferlWe CouaIr,·AlcL. '. . bridp authOIized acl'Ol!8 Elk RiveJ:, be- .. ..,een~ne County pd___ 109 Lcughl'" 1".".:.{t, '. . zeappointed &.Begent of. SmithlolWm In.titution______________ ._ _ _ _ 1146 Lctoft 8_ (.M G~). .' . Lcflll'mc.'ttillllmidolpA CofjftUat, Arl., .' 'may ~_~,_TarmstroBot (talk) 01:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)_~:.TarmstroBot (talk) 1093 .at Imboden______________________ 1093 Lmt1r1l'Mlf, Kcma., .'.. .• ;. ., approlLriAtion fOr ~o ~___ 179, 1042 , for HaiikeU InatitU~ XncBati8chooi . at_______ .; ______ . _ __ -'.:.: ____ 217,1578 . deficiency apprOpriatkmfQt. Haskell .' Iriftltlite'JDdIAn 8Chol)hL~_-___901, "."',. . . 1610, 1640 I.aiDrem» lJI;r.,c NB" ]); C., . . . apprO~n foi''P&vbrg, ete;t Twelfth . to ;Fo~th Streets; nom gu. otlile tufund::_______________ 653 for VVtr!:~ eu,.• 'l'~ to Twelfth ,from 'luoUne tax fund_ 1271 for paving, etc.• F'Qurteenth ~ Seven- 'teeD.th BtrtWita; from psoUne tax fund_,. _ __ _ _ ._~_ .--- .. ~- 1271, for pavin" ·etc.,Twenty-iecond . Stroettp ~h Dakot. Avenue; . .. fri).a .bi I 01 1b e' .' taX fund.________ 1271 £morencebur7,ilL' '. . . bridge' au 8erolal MiaIDi'!Uver, . between CoI~bia fark and_ __ 394 Law. 01 tAl Diamiit Of Cof~mlM~ dellcieney approPrfatfon' for. $Dploy- ,Lawton, Oklo" . terms· Of Clourt at___________________ _ Lazaro, Ladi4laa, lace G RepruentatilJe if!. COngT'"IJ, . dellcie~o~Et01:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)_TarmstroBot (talk)_TarmstroBot (talk)_ ~ La'Zear, J_ W., name placed on yellow fever honor roll, . and pretented with gold medal _ Lazear, Mabel H. (1Didoto), appropri"tion f~ monthly paymenta to Lead ArlJenateIJ, Pqe. Hil8 1409 353, 1374 appl'QPriation for preventing a&Ie, etc. of adulterated ________ ~ __ .. _ 6 0 0 . 1218 LeadvilU, Colo., appropriation for fish cultural station auxiliary to; reappropriation_ 98, 112t lAirJ Hopper, . approp::!=TarmstroBot (talk):::'X~-C!-01:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)~ 1220 Leo! Tobacco StatiBtica (.M Tobaooo). Leake CoiI., ., Jlia., . bridReauthoriHd acrosa Pearl River in_ 421 may bridge Pearl River, at Edinburg__ 975 Leaaing III N01IlMI.tJlJic MiMf'Ul DepoftIA Oft Public Lafttla, amended provisions relating to .lOdium .eompounda___________________ 1019 LeaIMr, appropriation lor developing standards of quality,ete., 0'- ___ ___ ___ _ 92, 1122 LeatMr', .".LetC., may brid&e wabaah River, at MoGre- pIS·Ferry. Dl_~ ___ .. ______ _ .. __ 480 lAO~K,,_., appropdatio for penitentiary, maID- tenanee ____________________ 82,1113 worklns capital te&ppropriated_ 82, 1113 for Misaouri River bridae repairs____ 1113 for Vorunteer80ldlera' Dome ____ 361.1383 deficiency appropriation for- peniten- tiary, malntanance_____ "'21, 906, 1646 for penitentiary, repairs, etc________ 1646 for penitentiary, building on prison farIm ______________ ._ _ __ __ _ __ 1646 for Volunteer SoldIers' Home_______ 39.! . 930, 1667, 166!S Liizvu oJ Abaence, extended, authorized Spanish .War veterans in departments, to at- tend annual convention in Ha- ban&, Cuba, in 1928; accumula- tion permitted________________ 433 granted employees of postal employees_ SP5 cumulative sick leave of ten days in a year, extended to six months_ _ 595 LeBN, J o.61Jh, C distinguislied flying croes to be pre- sented .Dieuaenne Coates and, for aerial journey of 35,000 miles, acroBB the SOuth Atlantic, etc__________________________ 482 Lee and GurrlOA'. Jlill, Gu.., metl't 'by COmmittee on Revlaion of the LaW!I ..~ouae of Repreaen- , tati\t~ CO<UI,YlIlg, etc.; reappro- wweon, OMGCii~-ciinch~A.: deficien~y appropriation for paving La 3 Fayette Extenaion RcHW. to____ 929 Lee CouRt7/,.!U .! _ 10ft,. executors of estate of, permitted to erect ftaptaff, etc., at Port Sumter, as memorial to General Robert Andel8On ____________, _ __ _ _ _ _ _ 499 1Ia.gBtaff substituted for a atatue____ 499 bridge autnorlZe<1 &OI'OBI Rock lUv8't, in_ 110 Le, Manaicn, Arlinpm NaWmal Ceme- t6f'J{! VII., . appropriation for restoration, etc., of._ 354 deficiency appropriation for restora- tion, etc., of__________________ 1666

�


text: Talk:Beaubien v. Beaubien/Opinion of the Court


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1906

 INDEX. clv !Auh Lake loo\(m RumJation, Minn., Pap. appropriation for road from Chippewa at Onigum in, to be built 'from tribalfunda__________________ 225 Leech Lake Relflf'tlotitm, Onivum, Minn., appropriation for sanatonum, construc- tion, equipment, etc___________ 1582 Lull Ferry, Arb., appropr18tion for maintenance, etc., of water--gauging station _ _ _ _ _____ 232 LegaC'//Taxell, Revenue ArJ 0/1898, time extended for presenting claims for refunding erroneously collected_ 398 paymE.nt directed of amounts allowed c~t&____________________ 398 LegatiOM, appropriation for clerks at.. __ __ __ __ _ 65,1096 deficien"cy appropriation for clerks at_ _ 48 for interpreterll to_________________ 48 Legion, Te:c., sale directed of Veterans' Bureau hos- pital reservation at____________ 716 Legislative Branch of the Government, approp!iation for Benate _________ 517,1387 for House of Representatives____ 520,1390 "during the session" to mean 121 dars- 523 "dunng the session" to mean 212 days~_______________________ 1393 for Capitol Police ______________ 325,1394 for Joint Committee on Printing_ 525, 1394 for office of Legislative {;ounseL_ 525, 1395 for Statement of App'ropriations_ 525, 1395 for Architect of the CapitoL __ __ 525, 1395 for Capitol Buildings and Grounds_ _ 525, 1395 for reconstructing, etc., Senate wing_ 526 for improving ventilation of both HOUBes______________________ 526 for Senate Office Building_______ 526, 1396 for House Office Building _______ 526,1396 for Capitol power pl&nt _________ 526,1396 for Library building and grounds_ 527,1396 for Botanic Garden ____________ 527,1397 for Library of'COn~- 528,1398 for Government Pnnting Office_ _ 530, 1398 for public printing and binding_ _ 530, 1399 holidays and leaves of absence_ 530, 1399 authority rcquired for work for COngress __________________ 530, 1400 for office of Superintendent of Doeu- ment& ____________________ 631,1401 purchases without reference to SUfPly COmmittee_________ 532,1402 use 0 funds for care, etc., of private vehicles prohibited _________ 532,1402 restriction on exceeding average 8alaries in designated oftices ________ 532,1402 if onlv one position in a grade ___ 532, 1402 advances allowed in unusually meri- toriOUlCase& ______________ 632,1402 restriction not applicable to clerical- mechanicalservice _______•__ 632,1402 no reduction in fixed 8alaries_ _ __ 532, 1402 transfer to another position without reduction _________________ 532,1402 higher salary rates allowed ______ 532,1402 Joint Congressional Committee created to investigate and report 011 adjustment on numher and pay of employees of Congress, ana of Architect of the CapitoL __ .. _ _ _ 1402 Legislative Counsel, salaries of, est&blished_______________ 279 Legislative Coun.el, OJfice 0/, appropriation for s&lariee and exp6D.8CI_ salaries of office of, for December, to be paid December 20, 1927 ______ _ P..,. 625, 1395 1 for December, to be paid Deoember 20, 1928_____________________ 1027 Legislative Referenete, Library 01 Congre8s, appropriation for preparing materials for COngreu, etc___________ 528,1398 Lenoir, N. C., deficiency appropriation for public buildingat___________________ 1658 Leominster, Mas•. , deficiency appropriation for public building aL_________________ _ 33 granted easement over public buildinS site, to widen street___________ 1017 Lepers, etc., appropriation for care, etc., IslandB of Guam and Culion, P. L ____ 625, 1453 Letter Carriers, Fo,tal S8f'tlice, a.ppropriatlon for city delivery_____ 189, 1052 for rural delivery ______________ 192,1055 deficiency appropriation for city de- livery _______________________ 2~45 vehicles may be hired from, for city delivery and collection service_ _ 1252 Letterman General HOllpital, Cali/-, const111ction of buildings authorized at. _______________________ 748, 1303 Leup'O Indian Hospital, Ariz., appropriation for support, etc., of_____ 1581 Leupp, Paul, may bridge Missouri River, at Stanton, N. Dak______________________ '76 time extended for bridging Miaaourl River, at Stanton, N. Dak,;r !Jy- 1475 Levees (8ee MissiBBippi River and Trlbu- taries, Flood Control). lAver Act of 1917, 40 defioiency appropriation for judgment, Ohio Southern District court unde!i against War Department_ Levis Strm NIS., D. C., appropriation for pavingl.etc., Trinidad Avenue to Orren I!Street________ 1271 Lewis, B. A., etc., may bridge Puget Sound, Wash., at the . Narrows_____________________ 1403 Lewis, Blmer A., appropriation for, superintendent of House document room______ 522,1392 Lewisburg, Tenn., appropriation for maintenance, etc., dair;V and livestock experiment statIOn at_____________________ 1199 dairy and livestock experiment station for the South to be established at_. __________ ~______________ 981 sum authorized for establishing; yearly appropriation8 hereafter _ 981 landB to be furnished by the State, etc__________________________ 981 Lewistown, Mom., deficiency appropriation for site and public building at_____________ 921 Lewistoum, Po., deficiency appropriation for public build- ing at_______________________ 33 Le:cima, Regina, sum authorized to pay to, wounded by Marine Corps enlisted man in HaitL______________________ 1477

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1907

 clvi INDEX. Lcrington, K1I., p.... Library oj Congrl8s--CQIltinued. ' " deficiency appropriation for public submiaeioll to Congress discontinued, of building at___________________ 1659 report of copyright entries. ___ _ Liberia, outside travel by employees _______ _ appropriation for minister president publications issued _____ •. . ________ _ and oonsul general to. _ __ _ _ _ _ 65, 1096 Library oj Congr"" Truat Fund Board, 995 995 995 LibfJrty Landing,¥o'J appropriation for expe~ of, not bridge authori.zeo. across Mlsaouri chargeable to trust fund. _ __ 529, 1399 River, at____________________ 154 License Bureau, D. C., Libttrt1l Loan An~, Treaaury Department, appropriation for salaries _________ 646,1263 appropriationfor,foroperatingforce.. 163, 1029 for temporary services__________ ._ _ _ 64:6 for operatinll expenses_____________ 1029 license required for practice of for repairs and preservation_______ 183, 1045 phrenology_____ ______________ 646 formechaniealequipment_______ 183,1046 deficiency' appropriation for vehicle deficieDcy appropriatIOn for construct- tags_________________________ _ inC two additional stories______ 34 Licem6l, D. C., 7 Librarian o/C01I.(/1'eU, required for J)racticing the healing arts salary of, increased__ _______________ 107 in the District________________ 1327 Library, D. C ., Free Public, Lien8 Jor Internal Revenue Tou" appropriaticmfor expenses ________ 648,1265 unpaid taxes a lien upon all property of Libra", oj Congress, taxpayer_________________ ~___ 875 appropriation for care J)f buildings and not valid against mortgagee, etc., until @'Gunds under Architect of the notice filed by collector_______ _ GapitoL ____ ~ ______ ._ 527,1396, 1397 under State or Territoriallaws____ _ for repain, etc____________________ 1397 in oifice of clerk of district court___ _ 875 876 876 for alterations, etc., east and south- of District of Columbia Supreme east.tack8~__________________ 527 COurt_______________________ 876 for furniture, etc. __ _ __ _ __ __ _ ~ __ 527, 1397 collector may issue certificate of release, for purchase of site for. new buildings_ 1397 if lien satisfied or unenforceable_ 876 for Librarian, chief assistant, and on acceptance of bond for payment otherpersonalservices______ 528,1398 of assessment, etc_____________ _ for Copyri~ht Office ____________ 528,1398 of partial diseharge_______________ _ forlegislatlvereferenceservice ___ 528,1398 eft'ect of certificate_______________ _ for distribution of card indexes, acceptance of single bond authorized_ _ .. . ____________ _________ 628,1398 application of eertiftcate and bond __ fortemPorarYserVices __________ 529, 1398 release of,under former Act, repealed__ for ~pariDi .1n4ex and digest to Life Saving SenJicf (8ee al80 Coast Guard, 876 876 876 876 876 876 Sta~legielati4n- __________ 528,1398 Treasury Department), forSuDda'yope~,etc:.- .. - - 628,1398 deficiency ~propriation for__________ 935 for purchase of .bOoks, publications, LiJe Sam,., Teetimoniala, etc__________________ .. __ _ _ 629,1399 approprIation for rescuing 8hipwrecked for~rlnting&.'!ldbindin.Bfor-- l\29,I899 American seamen, etc________ 68,1100 for Catalogue of Tftle Entries____ ftS,1399 Light Cn.iaers, for priritbig catalogue cards ___. , __ 529, 1399 appropriation for construction and forcontingeJitexpeDBe8 _________ 629,1399 machineryoftheaeeondfive____ 1468 for Building, 8uperi.ntendent and for armor, armament, and ammuni- otherpersonalserviees______ 629, 1899 tionforthefirstfive___________ 1469 for Sunday opening, etc ______ .. __ 629, 1399 Light V ea,ela~ IM1&tAouaee Bur/mu, for tePlPOrary, etc., services, care of appropriatIon for m$intenance. etc___ 95, 1125 building __________________ 629,1899 forofficer&andcrews_____________ 96,1126 formail,iueidentalexpenses _____ 529,1399 forconstructing,etc _____________ 96,1126 for expenses ofTrust Fund Board_ 529, 1399 Lir/hthouae Kea'Pf1", deficiency appropriation for Copyright appropriation forsalaries __________ 96,1126 Office________________________ 4 at isolated 8tations,allowed expenses of for Sunday opening, etc____________ 4 travel, etc., for medical attention_ 1261 for printblg catalogue, cards_ _______ 4 Lig1&thouae Tender. (see Light Vesaels). for =:~:_TarmstroBot (talk)_TarmstroBot (talk) 01:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC) 4 ~=~, with consent of Panama, forpurehase'of'bookal.etc_~- 1608 on J'icarita Island and Morro for printing and binrung___________ 1624 Puercos, on Pacific Ocean ap- forllalaries; 1923, under ___________ 1675 proachestoPanamaCanal______ 1262 distribution, eales, etc., of catalogues of purchase of site for dejlOts authorized eopyrightentries_____________ 714 at Newport, R. I ., and Portland joint OODim1aiiOD provided for acquisi- and Rockland, Me_____________ 1262 tioD of adjoining property for 8uperintendents and encineers tnay be additions to__________________ 622 detailed to duty in Washington, office of administrative assistant, etc., D. C ., without change of status__ 1262 of, abolished_________________ 497 Lightlw'IUee Bureau, Department 01 Com- duties to be performed under the mer", direction of Librarian__________ 497 appropriation for Commissioner, and salary of Librarian increased_________ 197 officepersonneL ____________ 95,1125 security of Elizabeth Robins Pennell, for general expenses, maintenance of executrix of will of Joseph Pen- aids to navigation, etc________ 95, 1125 nell, waivedonlegacyto________ 1446 forcontingenhxpense8__________ 95, 1125

�


text: Philadelphia Wilmington and Baltimore Railroad Company v. Philadelphia and Havre De Grace Steam Towboat Company


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1908

 INDEX. clvii Light1&ouae Bure<m, Department of Com- pa..,., Lincoln Memorial, D. C., Pqe. merce-Continued. appropriation for maintenance, ete., of appropriation for keepers of light- and reflecting ~l _________ 583, 1241 houses _____________________ 96, 1126 Lincoln Natior.aJ. Ji'O"ut, N. Me:I:· t for officers and crews of vessels_ ___ 96, 1126 exchange au\.hor.;~ed of~ublic Janda for for superintendents, clerks, etc ____ 96, 1126 privateiy owned lands within, forretiredpay __________________ 96,1126 for adding thereto____________ 1154 for publio works, vessels, aids to Lincoln National Parle (,ee Abraham navigation, etc _____________ 96,1126
 * "bcoln National Park or Res-

for payment to Winston Engine cr-ation, Ky.) . COmpany____________________ 1126 Lincoln Parle, TM Commi"io'Mf" of, deficiency appropriation for collision authorized to bridge, with South Park damagesclaims_______________ 15 Commissioners, Lake Michigan, for retired pay____________________ 15 in Chic8go___________________ 1078 for salaries, lighthouse vessels_______ 46 Michigan Cana1, in Chicago________ 1079 for general expeIlll88 ___ 46,933,1617,1671, Lincoln Road NE., D. C., 1673 conduit for power transm!ssion author- 1636 ized across between Michigan for hurricane damage repairs, 1928 __ for aida to navigation_____________ _ 1636 Avenue and Fourth Street______ 720 for salaries, 1929, under __________ _ 1680 Lincoln'. Deathplace, D. C., appropriation for maintenance, etc_ 583, 1241 959 LindberghJ. Charlu A., Colonel, Army Air exchange of lands with Chicago for new li~hthouse reservation ____ _ keepers at isolated stations allowed expenses of travel for medical at- tention_ ____ ______ ____ _______ 1261 payment of 60 percentforJ>avin~street in front of Detroit, Mich., Depot, authorized___________________ 1261 parcels of land of Parris Island Reserva- tion, S. C ., transferred to con- trol of Secretary of the Navy____ 1025 retentions for lighthouse uses_____ ___ 1026 additional land of Detroit Marine Hos- pital transferred for lighthouse purposes_____________________ 1026 portion of Duteh Gap Lighthouse Reservation, Va., transferred to Colonial Dames of America_____ 1024 transfer of land at Frankfort, Mich., to (JDrjn Ruerve, awarded Congressional medal of honor, for airplane nonstop flight, New York to Paris_______________ _ 1 deficieTarmstroBot (talk)'_:01:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)_f_01:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC) 915 gold medal to be coined and presented to, in recognition of hiS achiev&o ments_______________________ 490 appropriation for, authorized______ 490 duplicates in bronze to be coined and sold ________________ ~_ _ _ __ _ _ _ 490 proceeds to reimbUl'lle appropriation_ 490 Lip/ert, Franz, payment to Germany, for heirs of, deceased while seaman in Amer- ican merchant marine_________ 414 Ann Arbor Railroad Company for tract in exchan:r-- ________ _ portion of Ship Islan Reservation transferred to Ship~ Island MiI- Liquor Taua, Reven'IU Act oj 19B8, 1026 former provisions repealed___________ 868 tax on still wines at specified alcoholio ituy Reservation, Miss_ _______ 1556 sale authorized of portion of Pointe aux Herbee Reservation, La________ 977 Lightho'IUe" FO(1 Signal" etc., appropriation for maintenance, etc__ 95,1125 Lighting, D. C., appropriation for expenses_ _ ______ 659, 1275 part of cost for operating air mail lights, Bolling Field ________ 659,1276 rates for street lighting; contracts to lowest bidder ________ .. __ 659,1276 Lighting oj RiPml, appropriation for _________________ 95, 1125 LiUian, Ala., bridge across Perdido Bay at Cumming Point, Fla~! acquired by counties of .D ia or Baldwin or by Florida or Alabama, may be transferred, etc____________ 1510 Lima, Ohio, appropriation for publio building_ _ 179, 1043 Limutone County, Ala., bridge authorimed across Elk River, between Lauderdale County and.. 109 Limutone, Me., atrength_____________________ 868 exempt, for manufacture of vinegar or dealcoholized wines_________ 868 dealcoholized wines with less than on&ohalf of 1 per cent alcohoL __ 868 tax on grape brandy for fortifying wines reductjd________________ 868 abated or refunded if for manufac- ture of vinegar or dealcoholized wines________________________ 868 taxes on cereal beverages repealed_ ___ 868 Liquor Traffic, appropri"tion for suppressing, among Indians___________________ 204, 1566 forsupp~gJ AJaska _________ 240,1604 Liquor., AdWteraua, appropriation for expenses, preventin8_ sa.le, ete., oL__•___________ 666, 1217 for expenses preventing sale of, in District of Columbia_______ 669, 1285 Liquor" 1ntoo:icatiR(l, dtjficiency appropriation for expenses of enforcing prohibition of, etc., internal revenue______________ 1671 Lithuania, g,tonia, Latvia, and, appropriation for minister to _______ 65; 1096 deficiency appropriation for inspection station, construotion _________ _ Lincoln Birthplace Memorial, D. C., Lihtz, Pa., 1659 deficiency appropriation for tablet, to mark burial place of Revolution- ary: soldiers wounded at Battle . deficiency appropriation for improve- ments, ete _________________, 38, 1666 of Brandywine_______________ 1666

�


text: Talk:Philadelphia Wilmington and Baltimore Railroad Company v. Philadelphia and Havre De Grace Steam Towboat Company


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1909

 INDEX. LocomtJHw B"fi1WJ Boa-" tIIc.,54/6, PQe. apTarmstroBot (talk) for ~ C!OJIIIieUfng
 * ' Iaflroads to UIe;.' __ .;, ________ 6~1, 1239

~=:1oz:/~ftCh.;~! 66. 1097 .~, authoiUed reS.;' particnpa~ in At, f~, 8afe~y of

, . eatSea.. ___ ~__________,..--- 1016 Londtm.,{ltaiffr.. PotIGI C~ 'aPPfO"tfoD for' e%peD8ell 01 dele- .....'to ___ .. __ ;. _______ ~______ 191 Lmg B.cA, CoIi/., " appropriatioJlfOl' pubUo b~g___ 921,1043 free admiaaJOn of artloW. iJDJ)Oried, IOleIy fOl'exhl~at PaoI1Io South- west ExpositiOD aL_________ .. 396 executive aepartmeMe,' •., may pre- pale, etc., ariiollill .. exhfbite-"_ _ 397 Long I~ltmd 9'tv.N. r., ,, approprlatioD fo~ pubUo buDding; cost defiTarmstroBot (talk)"OQ.-for--P~bllO 177 . ~--~___________ 1665 Lon,'~'. on4 HGf''6or WorW. ,eow.~..Act, In couri prooeedinp' the diatrict attor- ~ rot' the ~ to appear ~.~eea' COmp.DI&tion provisions OiI&PPUC&bie-O~h-O;~: 490 l~em~Y.....ofu employer plo D" at 01 Columbia.________ 600 . em ymei1tia exCepted; veiael muter ~w••--- .. -- 600 00 .-r.0yeer -..:. .. --- 600 600 • .~ ,e~---~- .. ... . Of"N~o 1eI"VI08, or .patiQD-____ __ ._ _ _ _ _ 600 Lool:oul MotWaiA, T .... dedcieacy . apptopriab for ~ving 001'erllDlent Road, Saint Elmo to RoaaviUe, Ga.. _____________ ~ 929 Lopu I ..... Woe.... , lot in abandoned mfiitary reeervation bf:=-~-01:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC):: 1091 Lordlbur" N. Me:c., aOll8tructioQ on, Army Air Corpe, au., ~horized at_____ .. _____________ 1304 Lot AnpU.,Coli!., . defioieaoy appropriation 'ar.lumiabing copiea of patent apeeiJicationa, etc., 1911S-192lStojrebnbunsable 1637 erection authorized of building for" branch 01 San Franeieoo Federai ~.Bank ________________ 1140 '3ubject "to approval· of Federal Reaenre BO&rd-• .:____________ 1140 terIru! of court at__ • .; ...____ ._ _ __ __ _ __ 1424 uncertified copies of patent specifiea.- . tions1913to 1925, to befW1liahed public library of____ __________ 1497 payulent for, to be depolited in the . Treaeur.y_______ ~ __ __ • __ _ _ _ .__ 1497 SUlD authorized for Patent Office Upe_--_.. --..... -- 1497 Loa Angelu COf;m1/, Calif.' . lands in Los" An¢ea National Forest Withdrawn from minIng entries . for reforesting watersheds of____ 956

�