text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1918

 INDEX. clxvii • fItI,!"9ef' StII'rice, MtIIl-Continued. 1'.... deficlency appropriation for ___ 43, 936, 1620, 1650, 1672 Mallurgicol Prod"",, appropriation for investigating, etc., new prOClelllle8 in ____________ 92, 1123 Met8or'ologicallfWUtigationa, WeatMlt Bu. - reau, appropriation for expenses ________ 644, 1195 ••opolia,IU., deficiency appropriation for public building at___________________ 33 MGia, Te:z., deficiency appropriation for public M«rican ::M~:- 1659 gratuitoua iBBue 0!J to persons entitled_ 500 JI«rican Boundary (ommisBion, appropriation for expenses _________ 70, 1100 amount for direct expenditure by Geological Survey_____________ 70 deficiency approp'iation for _ _ _ 28, 1612, 1622 additional appro}:riation authorized for expenses of__________________ _ M e:ric43 'ruit Worm, 60 appropriation for cooperative expenses to oontrol spread 01. __ _ _ _ __ 565,1216 deficiency appropriation for coopGr- ative investigations, etc., of____ 12 M«rican Land Grants, N. Mex., exchanges authorUed of lands inl for additions to specified national forests_______________________ 431 Mexican Petroleum Company, deficiency appropriation for paying costs in the case of United States against _______________ _ M e:ric4n Service Medal, 21 gratuitous iBBue of, to persons entitled_ 500 Mexican Water Commission, appropriation for continuing work of__ Mexico, 75 appropriation for ambassador to ____ 65,1096 for Water Boundary CommiBBion_ 70, 1100 for general and mixed claims com- mission, United States and. __ 74, 1105 for expenses eradicating pink boll- worm of cotton in, etc _____ 565, 1106 for international commission on use of waters of lower Rio Grande, Colorado, and Tia Juana Rivers_ 1106 deficien.cy ap~ropriation for expenses, Water Boundary CommiBBion __ 28, 1612 28 28 use of contributions receivcd from_ transfer to Geological Survey___ _ for joint commiBBion with, on use of waters of Rio Grande_________ _ moneys from Mexico covered into the Treasury ________________ _ for general and special claims com- miBBiODB ____________________ _ consent of, required for bridging Rio Grande, at Donna, Tex_______ _ at Langtry, Tex _________________ _ at Los Indios, Tex _______________ _ at Presidio, Tex;.z to Ojinaga, Mexico_ at Rio Grande \jity, Tex __________ _ at San Benito, Tex _______________ _ at Weslacoz..Tex _________________ _ at Yalet&, Tex___________________ _ at Zapata, Tex __________________ _ steamship passenger tickets to, exempt from stamp tax ______________ _ 5d-835°-29-PT 1--121 29 29 913 1182 983 1183 116 1184 1181 471 1017 387 867 Me:zico City, Me:WA, 1',,_. appropriation for lIuperintendent, Amer- ican cemetery at___________ 3M, 1374 Miami, FIG., appropriation for reimbursement to, for improvement of harbor________ 358 for public building _____________ ISO, 1043 Miami, Mo.! bridge autnorized acrOBB MiBBOuri River, at___________________________ lq7 time extended for bridging Missouri River, at" ____ ~--- 1511 Miami, Okla., tenns of court at____________________ 1518 Miami RiHr, bridge authorized acrou, Lawrence- burg and Columbia Park, Ind__ 394 Michaud Division, Fort HaU ln4ian Rea- ervation, Idaho, deficiency appropriation for water service_____ __________________ gOO Michigan, agreement with Wisconsin for con- structing, etc., of bridge acl'OM Menominee River, between Marinette, Wis., and Menom- inee, Mioh., consented to by COn~- 300 Federal jurisdiction not affected____ 301 and Wisconsin may bridge Menom- inee River, at Marinette, Wis___ 303 holders of title for more than 20 years, etc., of tracts 01 publio land in, to have patent therefor________ 1188 corporations included__ ____________ 1188 may acquire, after completion, bridge acl'Oll8 Detroit River, at Btony Island__ __ ___ __ _____ __ __ _____ 621 Saint Clair River, at Port Huron_ 456, 1484 Michigan AlI6nlUJ NB., D. C., appropriation for paving, etc., North Capitol Street to Monroe Street; from gasoline tax fund_________ 1272 Michigan AlI6nlUJ NE., D. C., m:t. relocation of, from Franklin I:nreet to Lincoln Road_________________ 1543 portion vacated transferred to grounds of Soldiers' Home_ _ _ __ 1543 part of Soldiers' Home groundll, to be transferred to Commissioners for street U8e8___________________ 1534 designated portion of, vacated, and reverted to owners of desig- nated~- 1543 owners to dedicate described land to the Commissioners_ ____ __ ___ IS« transfer of parcel as part of Sol- diers' Home ground8__________ 1544 designated lands to be transferred to owners by Soldiers' Home commiBBioners________________ 1544 plat 8howing transfers to be prepared and certified by District IIU..- veyor________________________ 1544 to be recorded in office__________ 1544 relocation of tracks of Washington Railway and Electric Railway on__________________________ 1544 cost, and expenses to be borne by the Company; supervision of the work_____________________ 1544 amount authorized for paving, etc., made available for expenses of. 1544

�


text: Talk:Hooper v. Scheimer

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

title: Talk:Hooper v. Scheimer


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1919

 clxvill INDEX. Michigan Allen~ NB., D. C., ek. -Contd. Pqe. easement given Railway Company for operating cars, etc., over, when straightened__________________ 1645 charter of Company amended to provide for relocation of tracks, etc__________________________ 1645 Michigan Canal, bridge authorized across, in Chicago, Middle ll!-o;.-C~;;;;;,,;.;;q,-i>f&"i 1079 N.Mu., deficiency appropriation for payments to, 1929 and 1930_____________ 1640 agreement authorized with, for con- servation, irrigation, etc., Pueblo Indian lands within boundaries thereof______________________ 312 construction IlO8t of work apportioned to Indian lands_______________ 312 payable in not less than five annual installments._________________ 312 withheld if work not approved by the Secretary_________________ 312 determining apportionment of, on basis of Indian acreage benefited, including lands susceptible there- of__________________________ 312 limit of average cost per acre benefited_____________________ 312 present water rights of Pueblo owned lands in the district, and the domestic water supply, to have priority to any rights of the dis- trict, etc_____________________ 313 water rights for newly reclaimed lands to be equal to those of district , ~d protected from dis- cnmmatlOn__________________ 313 not subject to loss while title in Indians or United States_______ 313 area not subject to share of cost for future operation___ ____________ 313 reimbursement of 008t paid the district for Indian land_______________ 313 only from proceeds of leases of newly reclaimed pueblo lands_ _______ 313 no rental charges on newly reclaimed lands cultivated by Indians____ 313 lien for cost of works apportioned to newly reclaimed lands_________ 313 not enforced while title remains in Indian ownership_____________ 313 recognition of authority of Secretary of the Interior as to matters per- taining to rates of operation, etc_ 313 Middle Rio GraniU ConaertJancy Project, N. M63:., deficiency appropriation for irrigation and fiood controL____________ 900 Middletown, Pa., Army Air Depot, amount authorized for buildings ___ 130, 1303 Midland Bridge Comrany, Incorrorated, may bridge Cumberland River, at Smithiand, Ky_______________ 141 Tennessee River, at mouth of Clarks River_______________________ 143 Midshi-pmen, Navy, - appropriation for mileage from their homes when entering Naval Acad- emy, etc __________________ 632,1460 appointment by Vice President of, authorized___________________ 788 Midahipmen, N~ontinued. reatriction of allowance of appoint- ments as, after March 21,1928 __ after January 30, 1929 ____________ _ Midwifery, D. C., licenses required to practice _________ _ Migratory Bird Comert1ation Act, deficiency apJl_ropriation for enforcing _ creation of Migratory Bird Conserva- tion COmmi88ion ____________ _ composition and authority ________ = ex of!icio members from the States__ detailed report of operations to Congress each year___________ _ areas necessary for conservation of game birds to be procured ____ _ purchase, or rent of, approved by. the commi88ion ______________ _ mUi~ lands excluded__________ _ safe ti e to be secured ___________ = rights of way, etc., may be retained by grantors _________________ _ consent of State to acquisition of required ____________________ ' State Aurisdiction, except for Federal o enses, nut affected _________ _ game laws not interfered with specified acta affecting property, etC.~ of game refuges, bird preserves etc., forbidden _______________ ~ legal fishing not forbidden, if regu- lations complied with_________ _ definition of migratory birds as in the treaty of 1916 _______________ _ amounts authorized annually for all expenses ___________________ _ increasmg allotments to fiscal yea~ 1939 _______________________ _ allotment for fiscal year 1940, and thereafter__________________ _ administration expenses_________ = payments to be made only to reser- vation protectors ____________ _ selection of citizens of the State where eIIlployed, as protectors__ jurisdiction of Federal courts, etc. for f. , en orCIng ___________________ _ . disJ?OBal of seized birds, etc________ _ violatlOns of provisions of, a misde- meanor_______________ ~--- --- penalty for ______________________ _ comprehensive meaning of word "take" asused _____________________ _ consent of State required for with- drawing a bird reservation in any national forest or power site therein _____________________ _ cooperation of State by legislation for enforcing Act, etc____________ _ S'. lD l authorized for expenses of com- miBSion _____________________ _ order of chairman conclusive upon . General Accounting Office _____ _ invalidity of any provision, etc., not to affect remainder of Act effective on approval __________ ====== Migratory Bird Comervation Commi8ion creation and composition oL _______ ~_ duties of, as prescribed in the Migra- tory Bll'd Conservation Act. __ _ Migratory Bird Refuge, Utah! Bear Rwer, appropriation for establishing, etc____ _ Pqe. 632 1461 1336 1634 1222 1222 1223 1223 1223 1223 1223 1223 1223 1223 1224 1224 1224 1224 1224 1224 1224 1224 1224 1225 1225 1225 1225 1225 1225 1225 1225 1225 1225 1225 1226 1226 1222 1223 1210

�


text:
Hooper v. Scheimer/Opinion of the Court

THIS case was brought up by writ of error from the Circuit Court of the United States for the eastern district of Arkansas.

It was an ejectment brought by the Hoopers against Scheimer, for an undivided one-fourth part of lots numbered one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, and twelve, in block numbered ten, in that part of the city of Little Rock lying east of the Quapaw line, and known as Governor Pope's addition; and are embraced in the northwest fractional quarter of section number two, in township one north, range twelve west.

The plea was, not guilty, &c.; and upon the trial of the issue by a jury, a verdict for the defendant was returned, and he had judgment for costs.

The mode of bringing an ejectment in Arkansas is merely to state in the declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to the possession of the property, and that the defendant entered upon it and ejected the plaintiff therefrom.

The Hoopers were the heirs of Cloyes, and claimed under his pre-emption, which has been mentioned more than once in these reports.

The defendant claimed under a patent embracing the lots in controversy, to the reading of which in evidence the plaintiffs objected, on the ground that it was inoperative and void as to the said northwest fractional quarter on which said pre-emption had been established, because said fractional quarter had been previously appropriated to the private use of said Nathan Cloyes, deceased, and that such patent had been issued without authority, in violation and without warrant of law, and for land not subject to be granted or patented; but the court overruled the objection, and permitted the patent to be read; whereupon the plaintiffs excepted.

There was other evidence on both sides given upon the trial, but it is not necessary to mention it in this report.

After the evidence was finished, the plaintiffs offered two prayers to the court, the purport of which was to declare the patent inoperative and void; which prayers were refused. The defendant offered five which were granted, of which it is only necessary, in this report, to notice the two following.

1. The patent from the United States, conveying the fee to the northwest fractional quarter of section two, in township one north, of range twelve west, to the grantee therein named, dated 2d November, 1833, not appearing to be void, is a complete and paramount legal title, and must prevail in this action over the title of the plaintiffs, and any equities that may exist between parties behind it can only be assisted and be made available in a court of chancery, but cannot affect the patent in this action; and if the jury believe that the undivided interest mentioned in the declaration is embraced in the patent as a portion of the said tract of land, the finding of the jury should be for the defendant.

2. That the action of ejectment is founded on the legal title, and the plaintiffs must recover on the strength of their own title; that a patent from the United States is a higher and better legal title, and must prevail, in an action of ejectment, over an entry with the register and receiver or a pre-emption right under the laws of the United States, notwithstanding the State statute may authorize an action of ejectment to be instituted on the latter, and maintained against any person not holding under a superior title.

The case was submitted on printed arguments by Mr. Stillwell for the plaintiffs in error, and Mr. Hempstead for the defendant.

Mr. Stillwell's first point was this: Can the plaintiffs, claiming under a grant of pre-emption, recover against the defendant, claiming under a patent issued subsequent to the pre-emption?

We respectfully submit, that by the act of Congress of 29th May, 1830, the N. W. fractional quarter section 2, 1 N., 12 W., was appropriated to the use of the occupant, Nathan Cloyes, was not subject to be granted to any other person, by Congress or any officer of the United States, until the expiration of the time allowed him to make payment therefor, by that act and the act of 15th July, 1832; and it appearing that payment was made by his heirs within the time, the patent was void.

Perry v. O'Hanlon, 11 Missouri Rep., 595.

McAfee v. Keirn, 7 Smed. and Marsh Rep., 789.

Nicks v. Rector, 4 Ark. Rep., 283, 284.

Wynn v. Garland, 16 Ark. Rep., 454.

13 Pet. Rep., 513; 6 Ib., 738.

5 Wheat. Rep., 303.

Cromelin v. Waiter, 9 Ala. Rep., (N. S.,) 605.

Stoddard v. Chambers, 2 How. Rep., 318.

10 Smed. and Marsh, (Miss.,) 461.

7 Smed. and Marsh, (Miss.,) 366.

2 Laws Ins. and Ops., p. 16, No. 15.

2 Laws Ins. and Ops., No. 39, 40, p. 1045.

8 Mo. Rep., 94.

6 Cow. Rep., 282.

A pre-emption is a legal vested right.

9 How. U.S. R., 333.

4 Ark. Rep., 283.

The patent issued to Gov. Pope being void, as issued without authority, may be impeached in a court of law.

6 Cond. Rep., 358; 10 Johns. Rep., 26.

4 Cond. Rep., 653; 5 Cond Rep., 724, 664.

11 Mo. Rep., 595; 16 Ohio Rep., 66.

8 Mo. Rep., 94.

Under the statute of Arkansas, the patent certificate is of equal grade and dignity with the patent itself.

Rev. Stat. of Ark., p. 344, ch. 53, secs. 1 and 2.

McClairen v. Wicker, 8 Ark. Rep., 195.

Penn v. O'Hanlon, 11 Mo. Rep., 595.

Morton v. Blankenship, 5 Ib. Rep., 356.

Burner v. Marlow, 1 Scum. (Ill.) Rep., 162.

James v. Steel, 3 ib., 99.

And is a better title than a patent founded on a subsequent entry, within the meaning of the statute.

Pettigrew v. Shirley, 9 Mo. Rep., 688.

5 ib., 350; 11 ib., 595.

The patent could not affect the pre-existing title of the ancestor of the plaintiffs.

N. O. v. Armas, 9 Pet. Rep., 236.

U.S. v. Arredondo, 6 ib., 738.

Catlin v. Jackson, 8 Johns. Rep., 555.

Jackson v. Covey, ib., 388.

Fletcher v. Peck, 2 Cond. Rep., 321.

Nicks v. Rector, 4 Ark. Rep., 283.

And extraneous evidence was admissible to show that the patent was void, for want of authority to issue it.

Polk's Lessee v. Wendell, 3 Cond. Rep., 294.

4 ib., 653.

2 How. U.S. Rep., 317, et seq.

Collins v. Beaumin, 1 Mo. Rep., 385, (540.)

The title of the plaintiffs related to the date of the pre-emption act, (29th May, 1830.) The making of proof of occupation and cultivation, the adjudication of the right by the land officers, and the payment of the purchase money, were successive steps to perfect the right, and are to be regarded as having been done on that day.

Pettigrew v. Shirley, 9 Mo. Rep., 688.

Wynn v. Garland, 16 Ark. Rep., 454.

And, consequently, the intervening rights cut out.

Landes v. Brant, 10 How. Rep., 372.

12 Mo. Rep., 148; Walker's (Miss.) Rep., 97.

3 Cow. Rep., 75; Viner's Abr., Tit. Relation, 290.

Cruise on Real Property, vol. 5, p. 510, et seq.

When the patent was issued, the land had been appropriated, and was not subject to grant; and it ought to have been excluded by the Circuit Court, or the jury instructed to disregard it, as the plaintiffs asked. The act of issuing it was a mere ministerial act, and, as to the rights of the plaintiffs' ancestors, was wholly ineffectual to prejudice them.

Ware v. Busk, 1 McLean's Rep., 535.

Mr. Hempstead treated this point as follows:The first and principal question is, whether a patent issued by the United States can be impeached, annulled, and set aside, in an action at law.

I affirm that a patent is unimpeachable at law, except, perhaps, when it appears on its own face to be void; and the authorities on this point are so uniform and unbroken in the courts, Federal and State, that little else will be necessary beyond a reference to them.

In ejectment, the rule is universal, that the plaintiff must show the right to possession to be in himself positively. It is immaterial, as to his right of recovery, whether it be out of the tenant or not, if it be not in himself; and it follows, a tenant is always at liberty to prove the title out of the plaintiff, although he does not prove it to exist in himself.

Love v. Simms, 9 Wheat., 524.

Greenleaf's Lessee v. Birth, 6 Pet., 312.

King v. Stevens, 18 Ala., 475.

Rupert v. Mark, 15 Illinois, 540.

1 Blackf., 131; 8 Blackf., 320, 366.

And this grows out of a doctrine, universal in that action, requiring the plaintiff to recover on the strength of his own title, and not allowing him to be successful, on account of the weakness of the title of the defendant, or because he may have none at all.

2 Greenl. Ev., 331.

Marsh v. Brooks, 8 How., 233.

In Kentucky, it is a settled principle that courts of law will not look beyond the patent, and it is only in a court of equity that a prior right or equity can be established. The courts of the United States have adopted the same principle.

Finley v. Williams, 9 Cranch, 167.

The general rule in Kentucky appears to be, that patents cannot be impeached collaterally by evidence dehors the patent. They have the dignity of records. It is true a patent, when it appears on its face to be illegal, may be treated as a nullity, or considered as void; yet, if it appears perfect on its face, it cannot be vacated or annulled by matter dehors the patent. It is only by scire facias, or other regular mode, that it can be vacated. The reason of the distinction is evident. The Commonwealth cannot be divested of her title but by matter of record; and when she has so divested herself, she cannot regularly reinvest herself of the title but by matter of record. If a patent be illegal upon its face, it is itself record evidence of the matter which renders it a nullity; but if it be legal and perfect upon its face, it is a record of the title having passed to the grantee, and it cannot regularly be defeated but by matter of as high a nature.

Bledsoe's Devisees v. Wells., 4 Bibb, 329.

The same doctrine will be found explicitly recognised in Virginia, in Alexander v. Greenup, 1 Munf., 134.

It is fully supported by the English authorities.

5 Com. Dig., F. 1, F. 4, F. 6, F. 7, title Patent

2 Bl. Com., 346.

A patent is a record of high dignity. It issues under the great seal, is enrolled, and the proceeding to vacate or annul it must emanate from chancery, and may be set on foot by the Government, or any one prejudiced.

5 Com. Dig. Patent, F. 6, p. 357.

2 Com. Dig. Chancery, C. 1, p. 366.

Taylor v. Fletcher, 7 B. Monroe, 81.

There are certain exceptions to this rule, which may go far towards reconciling contradictory cases:

1. Where the Legislature has declared that the patent shall be void, if issued in contravention of a described state of case.

2. Where the Legislature has declared that the patent shall be deemed fraudulent, if issued under similar circumstances.

Taylor v. Fletcher, 7 B. Monroe, 83.

Ray v. Barker, 1 B. Monroe, 368.

Dallam v. Handley, 2 A. K. Marsh., 418.

Atchley v. Latham, 2 Litt., 362.

Jennings v. Whittaker, 4 B. Monroe, 51.

Pearson v. Baker, 4 Dana, 322.

Cain v. Flynn, 4 Dana, 501.

Sutton v. Mencer, 6 B. Monroe, 438.

Little v. Bishop, 9 B. Monroe, 246.

A patent cannot be declared void at law, because the patentee failed to give one in actual possession the three months' notice required by the act of 1831, (2 Stat. Law, 1037;) but the settlers' rights under the act may be enforced in chancery.

Pearson v. Baker, 4 Dana, 321.

A party cannot travel behind a patent to avoid it.

4 Monroe, 51.

A patent, when attacked incidentally, cannot be declared void, unless it be procured by actual fraud, or is void on its face, or has been declared void by law.

Underwood v. Crutcher, 7 J. J. Marsh., 532.

A patent cannot be avoided at law in a collateral proceeding, by matters dehors the patent, unless it is declared void by statute, or its nullity indicated by some equally explicit statutory denunciation.

4 Bibb, 330; 4 Mon., 51; 4 Dana, 322.

In Pennsylvania, where there are no courts of chancery, an action of ejectment may be sustained on an equitable title; but the rule always has been there, in the courts of the United States, that the plaintiff must show a paramount legal title.

2 Wash. C. C. R., 35.

12 Peters, 23.

Although State courts cannot interfere with the primary disposal of the public land, yet, if one obtain a legal title from the United States improperly, and to the prejudice of a prior right, equity will relieve and hold him as a trustee.

Groves's Heirs v. Fulsome, 16 Miss., 544.

Huntsucker v. Clark, 12 Miss., 337.

Stephenson v. Smith, 7 Miss., 610.

Gaines v. Hale, 16 Ark., 25.

It is only where letters patent are void on their face, as being issued contrary to law, or where the grant is of an estate contrary to law, as against the prohibition of a statute, that it possibly may be held void in a collateral proceeding.

Jackson v. Marsh., 6 Cowen, 282.

Jackson v. Lawton, 10 Johns., 23.

Parmlee v. Oswego Co., 7 Barb., 622.

The People v. Livingston, 8 Barb., 278, 284, 285, 286, 287, 295.

Jackson v Hart, 12 Johns., 77.

People v. Mauran, 5 Denio, 389, 398, 400.

A patent must prevail in a trial at law, unless it is in fact a felo de se-unless it carries on its own face the evidence of a nullity. One perfect on its face is not to be avoided, in a trial at law, by anything short of an elder patent. It is not to be affected by evidence or circumstances which might show that, in a court of equity, the party offering impeaching evidence would probably prevail. The jurisdictions of the two tribunals must be kept distinct, and the patent must prevail at law, although it may be made to yield to the superior right of the adverse party in another forum. In the case of an actual and perfect patent, there is no remedy but to set it aside in a court of equity, or in some direct proceeding having that for its direct end and object. It cannot be done in the ordinary progress of a trial at law, on evidence which the party had no means to know would be relied on, and therefore could not be prepared to meet. In other words, you cannot go behind a patent in a trial at law. The patent alone must prevail.

The principle interdicting the introduction of extrinsic evidence to impeach a patent free from objection on its face, does not depend on the grade or nature of the evidence.

Norvell v. Camm, 6 Munf., 233, 238.

Witherington v. McDonald, 1 Hen. and Munf., 303.

Alexander v. Greenup, 1 Munf., 140.

The same doctrine was laid down by Marshall, C. J., in Stringer v. Lessee of Young, 3 Peters, 340. He said no case had shown that a patent may be impeached at law, unless it be for fraud-not legal and technical, but actual and positive fraud, in fact, committed by the person who obtained it; and even that, said he, is questioned, citing the above case of Witherington v. McDonald, 1 H. and M., 306; also Hoofnagle v. Anderson, 7 Wheat., 212; Boardman v. Reed, 6 Pet., 342; 6 Cranch, 131; 8 How., 233; Patterson v. Winn, 11 Wheat., 380. The opinion of the Chief Justice evidently was, that a patent could not be impeached at law, even for fraud-actual, positive fraud. It has been said, a patent is void and confers no title when it issues for land that has been previously patented to another individual, or granted to him by act of Congress, which is equivalent to a patent.

Stoddard v. Chambers, 2 How., 318.

Grignon v. Astor, ib., 344.

Why is this so? Why, under such circumstances, may a patent be held inoperative at law? Those cases themselves answer-because the fee has passed out of the United States, and vested in the first patentee or grantee.

18 How., 88; 9 Cranch, 99.

Those cases do not warrant, nor are there any cases to be found in the courts of the United States which warrant, the impeachment of a patent, at law, in a case where a pre-emptioner claims in opposition to that patent. Resort must be had to a court of equity, and to that alone.

An elder equitable right may be investigated, and asserted in chancery against a patent, but this cannot be done at law. This court, says McLEAN, J., (6 Peters, 342,) have repeatedly decided that, at law, no facts behind the patent can be investigated.

A patent is a better legal title than an entry with the register and receiver, and in an action of ejectment must prevail over it.

Gaines v. Hale, 16 Ark., 25.

Griffith v. Deerfelt, 17 Miss., 31.

Dickinson v. Brown, 9 S. and M., 130.

Bruckner v. Lawrence, 1 Doug. (Mich.,) 37.

Bagnell v. Broderick, 13 Peters, 436.

Wilcox v. Jackson, 13 Peters, 516.

Wiggins v. Lusk, 12 Ill., 132.

A patent is evidence, in a court of law, of the regularity of all previous steps to it, and no facts behind it can be investigated.

6 Peters, 724; 5 Wheat., 293.

7 Wheat., 151; 11 Wheat., 580; 4 Peters, 340.

In actions at law, the legal title must prevail, and there can be no inquiry into the equities of the parties. They must be ascertained and adjusted in a court of equity. Where land is purchased in the name of one person, with the funds of another, the legal estate is vested in the former. The latter acquires only an equitable estate, and he must resort to a court of equity to enforce it, and cannot assert it in an action of ejectment.

Phelps v. Kellogg, 15 Ill. R., 136.

No equitable title can be set up in ejectment, in opposition to the legal estate.

Jackson v. Chase, 2 Johns., 84.

Jackson v. Pierce, ib., 222.

To recover in ejectment, the plaintiff must show a paramount legal title.

Swayze v. Burke, 12 Peters, 23.

A patent is conclusive in a court of law.

West v. Cochran, 17 How., 403.

14 How., 382; 15 How., 450.

The legal title must prevail at law.

13 How., 24; 11 How., 568.

9 How., 171; 8 How., 365.

A plaintiff must recover upon the strength of his title, and that must be a legal as contradistinguished from an equitable title.

Livingston v. Story, 9 Peters, 632.

United States v. King, 7 How., 846.

Gilmer v. Poindexter, 10 How., 297.

The fee remains in the United States until the issuing of the patent, and it must be so considered at law, although in equity the holder of the patent certificate of the register is held to be the owner.

Carroll v. Safford, 3 How., 460, 461.

Fraud, which goes to the question, whether the instrument ever had any legal existence, may be admitted in a court of law. But, otherwise, chancery is the proper forum.

Hartshorn v. Day, 19 How., 211, 223.

A patent cannot be collaterally avoided at law, even for fraud.

Field v. Seabury, 19 How., 324, 332.

This case is conclusive on the subject, and it was said that the case in 2 How. S.C.. R., 318, did not authorize the impeachment of a patent at law. Courts of justice have no authority to disregard surveys and patents, when dealing with them in actions of ejectment.

West v. Cochran, 17 How., 403.

Willet v. Sandford, 19 How., 82.

The Legislature of Arkansas has provided that an action of ejectment may be maintained on an entry made with the register and receiver of the proper land office of the United States, or on a pre-emption right under the laws of the United States.

Digest, 454.

But a patent, being a superior legal title, must, of course, prevail over them; nor would it be competent for any State legislation to give such titles, which are only of an equitable nature, precedence over the legal title.

Wilcox v. Jackson, 13 Peters, 516.

Irvine v. Marshall, 20 How., 566.

Bagnell v. Broderick, 13 Peters, 450, 451.

And although actions of ejectment may be maintained on an equitable title, or less than a complete legal title, in the State courts, by virtue of positive legislation, yet it may admit of great doubt, whether, in the courts of the United States, that action can be sustained on anything but the paramount legal title. Such I understand to have been decided.

In Carson's Lessee v. Boudinot, 2 Wash. C. C. R., 33, Judge Washington so held, although, there being no courts of chancery in Pennsylvania, the State courts allow a recovery in ejectment on an equitable title.

And, also, in Swayze v. Burke, 12 Peters, 23, also from Pennsylvania, it was held by this court, Justice McLEAN delivering the opinion, that, 'as there is no court of chancery under the laws of Pennsylvania, an action of ejectment is sustained on an equitable title by the courts of that State. Such is not the practice in the courts of the United States; and in this case,' says he, 'if the plaintiffs fail to show a paramount legal title in themselves, they cannot recover.'

Certainly the action never can be maintained against the superior title-certainly the dignity of a patent can never be imparted to the certificate of purchase; or, to what is a title of inferior grade, a pre-emption right.

Bagnell v. Broderick, 13 Peters, 450.

What security would there be in titles, if, in actions at law, juries should undertake to pronounce on the validity of patents-undertake to say whether they rightfully or wrongfully issued-or whether the officers of Government had proceeded according to law, and, if not in a collateral proceeding, a trial at nisi prius, annul the highest and most solemn titles emanating from Government? Here is a patent from the United States, regularly issued, under the great seal, signed by the President, and having passed through all the formalities requisite to make it the highest and most perfect evidence of title that can possibly exist, under any Government-regular and formal on its face-and the proposition is, that a jury, ignorant of law and legal proceedings composed, it may be, of persons not fit to try a six-bit case-are to pronounce upon its validity, and avoid it, if they please. What they might think to be fraud, might be no fraud at all; there might be ample power in the officer to issue it, and yet the jury might think otherwise. One jury might set aside a patent-another jury sustain it; and so, what ought to be the highest evidence of right, is something, or nothing, according to the whim, caprice, intelligence, or ignorance, of the jury. The whole thing is absurd; everybody sees it; and such a doctrine ought to receive no countenance whatever. If a patent issued, in many cases, after a long contest, and against vehement opposition, as this was issued, is not to import absolute verity at law, the issuing of patents ought to cease altogether, as they would only delude the purchaser; if, indeed, the disappointed contestant, in each case, could, the next day, in effect, take an appeal from a solemn act of Government to a jury, and reinvestigate the whole matter, and have the patent avoided at law. A claimant, disappointed in obtaining a patent himself, and his adversary having got it, forthwith brings an action of ejectment, and transfers the question to a jury, and reopens it again, with a view of having the patent annulled, in a forum where no issue can be made upon it, nor parties in interest brought before the court. I say again, the whole thing is absurd. If a patent is to be impeached or annulled, it can only be done by a direct proceeding in chancery for that purpose, and where all parties in interest can be brought, and their respective rights ascertained and protected. And to that forum these claimants resorted; and, after full investigation, the pre-emption claim was declared fraudulent, and the patent to be good; and they then commenced again at law to retry that question, and want to have a jury decide it, when they have failed in the proper tribunal. I have no idea parties can be successful in the attempt to commit such legal outrages.

The instructions given on that point are sustained by both principle and authority, and nothing further need be said to demonstrate their correctness.

2. The right forum to impeach the patent was a court of chancery, and that had been resorted to, and the pre-emption claim of Cloyes declared invalid, and to be in fact a base fraud, as the proof in the chancery case conclusively showed it was.

Lytle et al. v. the State et al., 17 Ark., 608. See transcript in this court, No. 123.

It was purely vexatious to bring this ejectment suit, and the plaintiffs had no right to do it, as the same matter was involved in their chancery suit.

Mr. Justice CATRON delivered the opinion of the court.

An action of ejectment was brought in the Circuit Court of the United States for eastern district of Arkansas, founded on an entry made in a United States land office. This was the only title produced on the trial by the plaintiffs.

The defendant held possession under a patent from the United States to John Pope, (Governor, &c.,) with which the defendant connected himself by a regular chain of conveyances. The Circuit Court held the patent to be the better legal title, and so instructed the jury, who found for the defendant; and the plaintiffs prosecute this writ of error to reverse that judgment.

By the statute of Arkansas, an action of ejectment may be maintained where the plaintiff claims possession by virtue of an entry made with the register and receiver of the proper land office of the United States. Ar. Digest, 454.

This court held, in the case of Bagnell et al. v. Broderick, (13 Peters, 450,) 'that Congress had the sole power to declare the dignity and effect of a patent issuing from the United States; that a patent carries the fee, and is the best title known to a court of law.' Such is the settled doctrine of this court.

But there is another question, standing in advance of the foregoing, to wit: Can an action of ejectment be maintained in the Federal courts against a defendant in possession, on an entry made with the register and receiver?

It is also the settled doctrine of this court, that no action of ejectment will lie on such an equitable title, notwithstanding a State Legislature may have provided otherwise by statute. The law is only binding on the State courts, and has no force in the Circuit Courts of the Union. Fenn v. Holme, (21 How., 482.)

It is ordered, that the judgment be affirmed.

No. 60 depends on the same titles and facts and instructions to the jury as are set forth in 59; and the same verdict and judgment were given in the Circuit Court.

We order it to be affirmed likewise.

title: Hooper v. Scheimer/Opinion of the Court


text: Talk:Hooper v. Scheimer/Opinion of the Court


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1920

 INDEX. clxix Migratory Game Birth, etc. Pa,p. appropriation for enforcing law protect- ing_______________________ 559, 1209 establishment of Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge, with____________ 448 Jla.tJge, Army, appropriation for officers, etc_ ___ __ 330, 1353 deficiency appropriation for officers eWL _______________________ 49, 1619 Milu City, JlOfIl., appropnation for educating Indian youths in livestock raisingl.Range Life Stock Experiment r:;tation at__________________________ 1577 Milu, Nelsm A., Army, site of battle between Nez Perces with command under, withdrawn from entry________________________ 621 'care, etc., of, by Montana, etc_____ 621 Milford, Conn., deficiency appropriation for public building at___________________ 1659 Military Academy, appropriation for pay of professors, chaplain, constructing quarter- master; additionaL ________ 345,1367 longevity _ __________________ 345, 1367 subsistence__________________ 345,1367 for pay of cadets_______________ 346,1367 for civilian employees __________ 346,1367 dist.ursing and accounting &8 one fund _____________________ 34~ 1367 for maintenance; designated ex- penses ____________________ 346,1367 BOard of Visitors ____________ 346,1367 for new cadet barracks! construction_ 1368 for completing new caoet hall, etc_ __ 1368 surplus materials! tools, etc., to be furnished for IDstruction infor- mation, etc _______________ 346,1368 leaves of absence to construction employees ________________ M6, 1368 purchases permitted withoutadver- tising ____________________ 346,1368 deficiency appropriation for additional pay_________________________ 928 for maintenance _______________ 929,1665 for new buildings, etc______________ 929 for pay of cadets_________________ 1665 for pay, etc., 1929_______________ 1691 balances of appropriations for build- ings and grounds, covered in_ _ 365 admission authorized to, of Jose J. Jiminez, a citizen of Venezuela; conditions, etc________________ 1011 two Chinese subjects; conditions, etc_______ ~_________ _________ 737 two Siamese subjects; conditions, etc__________________________ 737 amount authorized for razing old cadet mess hall and for plans, etc., for new cadet barracks; limit of cosL___ ___ ____ _ ___ ____ __ ___ _ 130 employment of architects________ 130 compoSition, etc., of Board of Visitors_ 597 construction of new buildings author- ized at______________________ 748 new cadet barracks construction au- thorized; limit of cost_________ 300 employment of architects by the Superintendent_______________ 300 payment authorized for paying ex- penses for recovery of bodies of cadets oL___________________ 248 purchase of polo ponies limited foruse of_ 334 Military Academy-Continued. PI&" . salary and a1lowance provided for chaplainat__________________ 573 sum authorized for completing new cadet mess hall, etc___________ 1071 for construction of buildings for officers' quarters_ _____________ 1258 site for new cadet barracks Be- lected_______________________ 1258 employment of architects for plans, etc__________________________ 1258 Military and Naf1aJ Compemation, Veter- am' Bureau, appropriation for. death or disability payments_________________ 588, 1246 Etf::I~de1._c:.e ___: 1246 deficiencr, appropriation for __________ 7 addltionil from unexpended bal· ances for designated objects_ __ 7 pay and allowances for emergency re- tired lists of Army, Navy, and Marine Corps, to be paid from_ _ 735 Military and N af1a.l 1murance, Veteram' Bureau, appropriation for, accruing during the year _____________________ ~ 1247 deficiency appropriation for__________ 45 Military Attachts appropliation lor expenses of, abroad.. 328} 1351 Military Foreign Service, negotiation of treaties with certain foreign countries requested, pro- viding that naturalized Ameri- cans of foreifPl birth while in those countnes, shall not be liable for____________________ 789 Military 1melligmce Division, General. Staff Corps, Army, appropriation for contingent expenees_ 328} 1351 Military Maps assistance of Geological Survey, Coast and Geodetic Survey, etc., in preparing____________________ 509 Military Operatiom Abroad, appropriation for observing_ ___ ___ 328, 1351 Military Parka (866 National Military Parks). Military Post Comtructim Fund, authorization for construction of speci- fied buildings, etc., from _____ 129, 1301 Military Post EUMng66, Army, appropriation for maintenanceoL__ 329,1352 deficiency appropriation for _ _________ 49 Military Posta, appropriation for construction, etc. 334, 1358 for Walter Reed Hospital, D. C ____ _ 334 additioll31 contracts for buildings, etc., authorlzed_______________ 335 not available for construction at Scott Field, lli_ _ _ _ ___________ 335 payment of incurred obli~ations- _ 1358 amounts from constructIOn fund and the Treasury_____________ 1358 additional contracts authorized_ __ 1358 deficiency appropriation for construc- tion, etc., of buildings at_____ 35,1664 division of appropriation_________ 36 for water and sewers at___________ 49,935 for roads, walks, etc_______________ 935 for construction_ __ _____ __________ 926

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1921

 Military P08ta-Continued. balances of appropriatioN! for, oovered in _________________________ _ Hawaiian IsIand!!.. __ __ _ __ __ _ __ _ __ _ Pa ~ aC a na l ______ _______ _____ _ sites____________________________ _ appraisal and sale of Ship Island Reeer- vauon, J4Um ________________ _ authorization for nlll'lle8' quartel'll, etc., at SchoJield Barraclal, Hawaii__ barracks, etc., to be constructed at Fort Humphreysl Va ________ - _ Camp Bullis, Tex., additional land for, Camp ~ai:l~;d;ib;addiiio;~ bepurchased________________ _ construction authorized, at Bolling FieldJ...~'. C _________________ _ Chanute .l'leut, ill _______________ _ Fort Crockett, Tex_______________ _ Fort Sam Houston, Tex __________ _ Hawaiian Department, for Air Corps_ San Antonio Tex., New Primary FIyin~ FIeld ________________ _ New Primary Flying SChooL ____ _ acceptance of sites for __________ _ authorizauons for Brooks and Kelly Fields transferred_______ _ sale of Brooks and Kelly Fields authorized __________________ _ Langley Field, Va________________ _ Middletown Air Depot, Pa________ _ San Antonio Air Depot, Tex_______ _ Scott Field, ill___________________ _ Fairfield Air Depot, Ohio _________ _ March Field, Calif _______________ _ Maxwell Field, Ala ______________ _ Mitchel Field t N. Y _____________ _ Selfridge Fiela, Mich _____________ _ Albrook Field, Canal ZOne ________ _ Fort Leavenworth, Kans__________ _ Walter Reed Hospital, D. C __ __ __ _ Military AcadeID.Y, N. Y __________ _ Fort Benjamin Harrison __________ _ Scofield Barracks, Hawaii_________ _ Fort Sill, Okla.__________________ _ Fort Benning, Ga________________ _ construction authorized of buildings, etc., at designated ___________ _ selection of BOlling Field, D. C ., as radio and communication center_ adjacent land for flying field ____ _ technical buildings, etc., for Air Corps servioe at designated _________ _ transfer of portion of Camp Lee, to Petersburg Military Park _____ _ sale of tract on Fort H. G. Wright Res- ervation ____________________ _ acqniring two tracts of land, for defense of Atlantic aeaboard _________ _ construction of new C'..adet barracks at Military Academy, authorized__ construction of barracks, etc., at Fort Wadsworth, N. Y ., authorized._ Fort Mason, Calif., part of, granted ~ ~ncisco, for use of recre- auon pler___________________ _ Fort Monmouth, N. J., additional land to be purchaaed. as addi- tion to______________________ _ portion of Fort Douglas, Utah, granted Salt Lake City, for street pur- right 0ri-01:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)01:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)r01:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)TarmstroBot (talk)!~ INDEX. 364 364 364 365 1556 372 374 1073 1018 129 129 129 129 129 129 129 129 129 129 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 1301 1303 1303 1303 1305 1305 1305 300 1425 374 251 1325 1074 Military Post_Continued. p .... sum authorized for powder blending unit, at Picatinny AJ'IIenal, N. J _ 1305 time extended for op.tion of Louisiana, to purchase Jackson Barracks, La__________________________ 3V7 Aiilitar'll Rumati07l8 (.ee Military POlIte), Military Rea-mJation A~, land in Lopez I~d, Wash., granted San Juan County for public. park,etc____________________ 1091 Militartl Service, deficiency appropriation for registra- tion, etc., expenses______ 49,937, 1619 Military SurveY8 and Map', approp.iation for ________________ 322,1364 deficiency appropriation for__________ 928 Maitaf1l Training Camps, Citizem, transportation in kmd, and mileage subsistence allowance, may be furnished persons attending____ 251 Military Training oj Citizens, appropriation for Reserve Officei'll' TrainingCorpB____________ 34~ 1371 for other Ichools and colleges____ 350,1372 for training camps_____________ 350,1372 Militia Bureau, Army, appropriation for civilian personnel, VVar Department__________ 326,1350 for expenses, arming, equipping, and training National Guard____ 347,1368 defici6ncy appropriation for salaries, 1929________________________ 1691 Militia, D. C ., appropriation for expenses ________ 678,1294 for camps, drills, etc___________ 678, 1294 for commutation of subsistence, en- listed men, on special detail_ 678, 1294 for rent of armories ___, .. ___ ___ __ 678, 1294 for printing, etc _______________ 678,1295 for contingent expenses _________ 678,1295 for target practice expenses _____ 678, 1295 for pay of troops other than Govern- ment employees ___________ 678, 1295 deficiency appropriation for pay of !f:y~:~c:-01:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)01:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)TarmstroBot (talk): 163 for salaries, 1929________ __________ 1694 Maitia, Organized, balances of appropriations for equip'- ment of armories, Coast Artil- lery, covered in_______________ 365 M-blJ: and Cream, appropriation for regulating sale, etc., in District of Columbia________ 1285 deficiency appropriation for regulating importation, etc., df___________ 14 Milk Importation Act, appropriation for expenses of adminis- tration, etc _______________ 666,1218 Milk River Irrigation Project, Mont., appropriation for maintenance, etc., of _______________________ 229,1591 Miller, C. S. ., etc., may bridge Ohio River, at Mound City, 111__________________________ 316 time extended for bridg!ng Ohio River at Mound City, nl., by________ 1529 Millville, N. J ., deficiency appropriation for public building at__________________ 33 Milwaukee, Wi8., appropriation for Volunteer Soldiers' Home ____________________ 360,1383 for public building________________ 1043

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1922

 INDEX. clxxi Jiilwa.uku, Wia.- Continued. p.... deficiency appropriation for Volunteer SOldi 'H ere omme-- i620;i667;i668, lJi~4 . for ~ office, etc., improvemente___ 92'l M"I~ Accidem8, m., appropriation for investigating, etc_ 101 1131 deficiency appropriation for investi-' gatin_g,etc 898,1621 MifUJ Rucue Carll appropriation for expenses, operating, etc_______________________ 101,1131 for equipment, supplies etc_ ____ 101, 1131 deficiency appropriatIon for operating, etc__________________________ 898 Mine Scale8 ana Carll, appropriation for investigating, etc_ 92, 1123 MifUJ Yaw18, Motor, construction or purchase of two authorlzed __________________ ~ 717 Mineral Dep08it8, NonmetaUic, permittees for gas and oil p,rospecting, ro:anU:d. further additional time or drilling, etc_______________ 252 extens.~on allowed for expired per- nute_________________________ 252 provisidns ~':! leasing! etc., sodium epoBl on public Janos_______ 1019 Mineral Fuels ana Products, appropriation for testing, etc., belong- ing to United States_______ 101, 1132 Mineral InaustrieB, appropriation for investigating prob- lems, etc., ot. _____________ 104,1132 Mineral Substances ana Oru, appropriation for investigations, etc_ 102, 1132 deficiency appropriation for investigat- ing mining, etc., ot.___________ 898 allowance increased for services in the District, for mining, etc., other than fuel_____________________ 16 Mineral.! on Public Lands, N onmetaUic, appropriation for enforcing provisions relating to mining, etc______ 232,1595 Minell Bureau, Departm.ent oj Commerce, appropriation for salaries and general expenses__________________ 101,1131 attendance at meetings _______ 101, 1131 for investigating mine accidents methods of mining, etc _____ lell,1131 for investigating mining, quarrying, . etc.; Alaska mines _________ 101,1131 for mine rescue, safety methods, etc_______________________ 101,1131 for rescue cars and stations_____ 101,1131 purchase of operating equipment etc_______________________ 101,1132 trophies for mine rescue and first aid conteste_______________ 101,1132 for investigating mineral fuels, etc ______________________ 101,1132 for investigating, etc., mineral ores, etc.,otherthanfuels________ 102,1132 private work forbidden _______ 102, 1132 for oil, gas, and oil shale investiga- tions _____________________ 102,1132 for development of oil shale; opera- tion of plant, etc______________ 102 for mining experiment stations__ 102, 1132 for Pittsburgh and Bruceton, Pa., experiment stations ________ 102,1133 temporary details from the field for service in Washington; payment of expenses ________________ 103, 1133 Mines Bureau, DfJparl,atmt oj Com.ffler_ p. . .. Continued. . appropriation for Pitteburgb and Bruceton, Pa., experiment .ta- tions; deta.lla of Public Health officers for cooperative work with Bureau_______________ 103, 1133 for Government fuel yards, District of COlumbia... __ __ __ _ __ __ _ __ 103,1133 for helium production and investiga- tions_ ____________________ 103, 1133 for investigating resources of helium bearing gas, etc____________ 103,1134 for helium producing plants, pur- chase, lease, construction etc ______________________ 104,1134 for potash explorations, etc _____ lOf,l134 transfer for expenditure by Interior. Department__________________ 1134 for investigatinB, etc., economies of mineral industries__________ lOf,l135 for report on mineral resources of United States_____________ 104, 1135 scientific work for departmente etc., by the Bureau________ 105,1135 transfer of funds, etc _________ 105, 1135 open market purchaeea of supplies and equipment____________ 105,l1M for books, periodicals, etc_______ 105, 1135 for procuring helium for Army from _____________________ 33~ 1361 for advances from Navy for helium production, etc ____________ 636, 1465 deficiency appropriation for oU shale investigatlOns_ __ _____ ________ 16 for mineral mining investigations_ _ 16, 898 for Norton, Va., garage____________ 16 for Navy aviation tra.Dsfer to_______ 46 for minin~ e~riment stations____ 46, 1637 for investlgatmg mine accidents__ 898, 1621 for rescue cars, etc________________ 898 for expenses, attending conferences, etc__________________________ 898 for general expenses_______________ 1617 for pot~h explorations, etc________ 1637 for sa1a.ries, 1929, under .:.___ ____ ___ 1680 sums authorized for research ofl and Soils Bureau, Agricuitural De- partment, for determining im- proved methods of recovering pot8.!'h from. various potash bearmg depoSl.te______________ 1248 Minidoka Irrigation Project, Idaho, appropriation for maintenance, etc., of_ use of power revenues __________ _ 228 1500 228 for maintenance, etc., American Falls ~rvo~____________________ 228 power plant; unexpended balance reappropriated________________ 228 deficiency appropriation for gravity extensIon unit________________ 902 Mining EzploBions, appropriation for investigating causes of, etc____________________ 101, 1131 Ministers Plenipotentiary, Envoys Extraor- dinaryand, appropriation for salaries_ __ _______ 65, 1096 deficiency appropriation for salaries_ __ 48 Minneapolis, Minn., deficiency appropriation for Dew post- office building at-r ---.---______ 1659

�


text:
United States v. White (64 U.S. 249)

THIS was an appeal from the District Court of the United States for the northern district of California.

The petition was filed by Charles White, claiming under Manuel Ortega, who gave in evidence the following documents of title, viz:

1. June 12, 1840. A petition of Ortega to the Governor Alvarado for a grant of land called Arroyo de San Antonio, describing its boundaries.

2. June 20, 1840. Reference by the Governor to the military commander of the frontier of Sonoma, to make report.

3. Report of M. G. Vallejo, that the land may be granted.

4. The marginal decree signed by Alvarado, as follows:

MONTEREY, August 10, 1840.

In conformity with the information given by the military commander of the frontier of Sonoma, and in virtue of the faculties with which I am invested, I grant to Don Antonio Ortega the land petitioned for, with the understanding that, to expedite the respective title and to regulate the necessary documents by which he shall mark out the lines and perform those necessary acts, he shall make a map, as required by law, which he will present opportunely.

This decree shall be returned to him, that it may serve him as a security during the other operations indicated.

(Signed) ALVARADO.

This title never having been completed by a final grant, the expediente is not to be found among the archives, having been returned to the petitioner to 'serve him as a security' in the mean while. But its authenticity is proved by the testimony of the officers, Vallejo and Alvarado, who themselves signed the documents. Their genuineness is therefore not disputed, at least there is no testimony going to impeach the characters of these witnesses.

In order to establish an equity, the claimants examined, first, Ortega himself, who testified that, after the decree made by Alvarado in his favor and in the same year, he applied to Alvarado for a full and formal title; but it was during a recess of the Departmental Assembly, and he could not obtain it. That he presented a diseno or map to the Governor, and went to Oregon, leaving his papers in the private custody of Governor Alvarado. A copy of this map is attached. He says he did not occupy the land himself in person; but that Juan Miranda, his father-in-law, occupied it for him, by placing his son there. That Miranda, the father, died in 1845, and his son continued to occupy the land. That he (Ortega) went to Oregon in 1843, and did not return till after the occupancy of California by the Americans. That after his return he went to Alvarado and got his papers for the purpose of establishing his claim, which he conveyed to a priest named Brouillet. As to the custody and delivery of the papers, he is corroborated by Alvarado.

Richardson, another witness, also testified that he knew the land; that it was occupied by virtue of a contract between Ortega and Miranda, and the occupation continued till 1850 by the son of Miranda; that both Ortega and Miranda told him that Miranda occupied the rancho for Ortega; that a house was built; and the land occupied by cattle and horses, and by cultivation.

Vallejo testified as follows:

'It was, I think, about 1838 or 1839 that Ortega applied to me for permission to settle there; and immediately after I gave that permission, he moved on to the land, taking with him his father-in-law, Juan Miranda, and his family; he built a house there and a corral, and stocked the place with horses and cattle; I furnished him with stock to stock the place, and he went on to cultivate a portion of the land; he after that obtained a grant from Governor Alvarado about 1840; Ortega, when he placed his father-in-law on the land, was an officer in the army, and was a portion of the time with his command, and went occasionally to his ranch.'

One Jose de la Rosa also testifies that he made the map for Ortega in 1839 or 1840-wrote his petition for him, and saw the grant of Alvarado in his possession on the ranch of San Antonio. That Ortega's wife and family resided on the ranch with her father's family; that Ortega himself left the country, and did not return till 1847; that in 1844 the witness wrote a petition for Miranda for this same land, and presented it to the Governor Micheltorena for him; that a grant to him was written by one Clark, in the Secretary's office, which was never signed, on account of civil disturbances.

A witness named Martin was called by the attorney for the United States, who swore that he occupied this land in 1832 by license from General Vittoria, and had 'a loan of the land;' that he continued such possession till 1837; built a house and cultivated the land; that he delivered possession of the land to Miranda, and removed his house to another tract; that Miranda took possession by putting his son on the land, with cattle, &c.; that Ortega was married, in 1838, to Miranda's daughter; that he had delivered the possession to Miranda before that time; that Miranda's son continued the possession till he was sold out by the sheriff.

Mesa, who lived in the family of Miranda at the time this land was occupied, swears that it was claimed and occupied by Miranda, who had been working in the mission for some years; that the cattle were given to him in pay for his labor, and branded with Miranda's brand; that Miranda occupied it, with the consent of Vallejo, for the purpose of applying to the Government for a title; that Ortega was poor, and had no property but a horse. This witness is also confirmed by the testimony of Francesca Miranda, the wife of Ortega, and whom he had forsaken when he went to Oregon.

The expediente of Miranda is found among the archives. It commences with a petition in February, 1844, by Miranda, representing that for more than four years he had been in possession of a place in the Arroyo San Antonio, which had been granted to him by Vallejo, but that the papers were lost. The informe is in due form; the grant drawn out, but not signed.

The board of commissioners adjudged that the claim of the petitioner was valid, and decreed that it should be confirmed.

The District Court affirmed this decree, and the United States appealed to this court.

It was argued by Mr. Black (Attorney General) and Mr. Crittenden for the United States, and by Mr. Cushing and Mr. Phillips for the appellee.

The arguments in the case involved the title of Miranda as contradictory to the title of Ortega, and, under the opinion of the court, it is deemed proper to omit them.

Mr. Justice GRIER delivered the opinion of the court.

title: United States v. White (64 U.S. 249)


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1923

 clxxii INDEX. Minmapolis, Minn.- Continued. Pap. time extended for bridging Mississippi River, at Saint Paul and____ 293,1185 MinneaoCG, bridge authorized acl'088 Saint Croix River at Stillwater, by Wiscon- sin and______________________ 1172 may acquire, after completion, bridge acl'088 Mississippi River, at ~ W~__________________ 289 at Wabaaha.____________________ 282 Saint Croix River, Dear Grantsburg, Wia ________________________ _ may bridge Mississippi River, at Aitkin_ at Hastings___________________ _ at Monticello__________________ _ 703 761 1075 118 Red River of the North, Fargo, N. Dak. to Moorhead, Minn___ 472 between Grand Forks, N. Dak., and East Grand Forks, Minn___ 113 time extended for bridging Mississippi River, by,etc:z.atClearwater_ 118,1527 Red River of the .NortlJ.t by, etc____ 1534 Minnuola Atlenue SE., D. (i., appropriation for paving, etc., Penn- I!ylvania Avenue to Eighteenth street; from gasoline tax fund__ 654 Minor CDina, appropriation for recoinage oL ____ 166,1032 deficiency appropriation for recoinage of___________________________ 29 Minority ConfertmC$, H0'U8e of Reprll8enta- titles, appropriation for clerks, etc.; appoint- ment _____________________ 523, 1393 Minority Employ_, H0'U8e oj Reprll8enta- tives, appropriation for ________________ 623, 1393 Minor8, D. C. (866 Employment of Minors, D.C.). Mint Bureau, Treasury Department, appropriation for Director, and office personneL ________________ 175,1040 for transporting bullion and coin_ 175, 1041 for contingent expenses_________ 175,1041 for examinations, etc ___________ 175,1041 for personnel and expenses of des- ignated mints and assay offices__ 175, 1041 Minta and Aa8ay OjJicu, appropriation for Director of the Mint Bureau, personnel and expenses_ 175, 1040 for examinations, etc___________ 175, 1040 for expenses of. mints at Denver, Philadelphia, and San Francisco, and assay office at New York___ 175 for employeest '!ltc., Iltints at Carson City and 1~ew Orleans and assay offices at Boise Helena, Salt Lake City, and Seattle_________ '76 for compensation, etc., mints atPhila- delphia, San Francisco, Denv6r, New Orleans, ani Carson City _ 1041 assay offices at ~ew York, Boise, Heler.a, Salt Lake City, and Seattle_ _____ ______ ____ ______ 1041 deficiency Itppropriation for coinage of medal of Colonel Charles A. Lindbergh___________________ 915 for gold medal to IJncoln El1sworth__ 1614 for commemorative medal to Thomas A. Edison____________________ 1614 for salaries, 1929, under___________ 1688 Minta and AllIlay O,6ices. -Continued. P.... issue authorized of 5O-cent silver coin, to commemorate ses~u1centen Dial of discovery of Hawaiian Islands____ _______ _____ _______ 198 Misbranded Fooda, Druga, etc., appropriation for expenses, preventing sale of____________________ 566,1217 for ext>E:nses preventin~ sale of, in D18trict of COlumbla_______ 669, 1285 MisceUan60'U8 ltem8, appropriation for, House of Representa- tiv(q _____________________ 524,1394 for 8enate_____________________ 520, 1390 deficiency appropriation for, 8enate_ __ 884 Misllion Agency, Calif., appropriation for support, etc., of In- dians at __________________ 222,1583 Mislions (aee Foreign Service). Miaaiaaippi, appropriation for aid, etc., to, for lOBS or damages to roads and bridges, by the floods of 1927__________ 1381 may acquire, after completion, bridge acr088 MississippI River, at Ar- kansas City, Ark______________ 381 at Helena, Ark___________________ 762 sale authorized of designated accreted publio lands in, not lawfuly ap- propriated under land laws_____ 422 preference right to purchase by owners, etc___________________ 423 Miaaiaaippi AI/enue SE., D. C:,J.. appropriation for grading, ~irst Street to Halley Terrace_____________ 655 Misaiaaippi Northern Judicial District, appointment of judge for, authorized_ _ 1422 Mississippi River (8ee al80 Mississippi River and Tributaries, Flood Control), . appropriation for reimbursing local in- terests for emergency levee con- struotion and repairs on lower, floo? of 1927; immediately available__________ ______ _____ 359 for prosecuting work of flood con- troL _____________________ 359,1381 for emergency fund for flood rescue work on tributaries of. __ __ __ _ _ 1381 for prosecuting work of flood control under Act of 1928____________ 930 deficiency appropriation for emergency flood controL _________ ______ _ 38 allotment of funds used for, .ap- proved______________________ 38 bridge authorized acroBS, at Aitkin, Minn_______________________ 761 at Alma, Wis_____________________ 289 at Arkansas City, Ark_____________ 381 at Baton Rouge, La_______________ 130 at Bettendorf, lowa_______________ 759 at Carondelet, Mo________________ 505 at Cassville, Wis__________________ 293 at Chester, IIL _________________ 283,291 at Cohasset and Deer River, Minn___ 473 at Hastings, Minn________________ 1075 at Helena, Ark_ ___________ ______ _ 762 at HickrnaniKy-- 321 at LansinB, owa_ _________________ 280 at Little Falls, Minn______________ 118 at Monticello, Minn_______________ 118 at Prairie du Chien, Wis___________ 198 at Tiptonville, Tenn_______________ 507 at Wabasha, Minn_________________ 282

�


text: Talk:United States v. White (64 U.S. 249)


text:
United States v. White (64 U.S. 249)/Opinion of the Court

It is clear, from the evidence in this case, that, as against the United States, either Ortega or Miranda has a just claim to a confirmation of his title to the tract in dispute. But whether Ortega was landlord, and Miranda his tenant, or which of the claimants has attempted to overreach the other, are questions in which the Government has no interest. The United States officers are not bound to settle this dispute between these parties in these proceedings. Nor should either party be permitted to carry on their litigation, by assuming to act for the Government, and thus take the advantage of their opponents, by fighting under its shield and at its expense. The District Attorney of California had neither interest nor authority to represent Miranda in order to defeat Ortega; nor can this court be thus compelled, on an appeal by the Attorney General, to become the arbiters of disputes in which the Government has no concern.

The patent issued in pursuance of the act of Congress which authorizes these proceedings, is conclusive only between the United States and the claimants. It does not affect the interest of third parties.

The act of Congress (3d March, 1851, section 13) points out the mode in which contesting claimants may litigate their respective rights to a patent from the Government.

Instead of an appeal to this court to settle the rights of Miranda in a proceeding in which he is no party, the claimants under him, if there be any, should proceed in the mode pointed out by the act, which provides: 'That if the title of the claimant to such lands shall be contested by any other person, it shall and may be lawful for such person to present a petition to the district judge of the United States for the district in which the lands are situated, plainly and distinctly setting forth his title thereto, and praying the said judge to hear and determine the same; a copy of which petition shall be served upon the adverse party, thirty days before the time appointed for hearing the same. And it shall and may be lawful for the district judge, upon the hearing of such petition, to grant an injunction to restrain the party at whose instance the claim to the said lands has been confirmed, from suing out a patent for the same until the title thereto shall have been finally decided; a copy of which order shall be transmitted to the Commissioner of the General Land Office, and thereupon no patent shall issue until such decision has been made,' &c.

It appears from the record that Valentine, who purchased the title of Miranda at sheriff's sale, had filed his claim before the board of commissioners for confirmation, and afterwards withdrew his petition. Now, if Miranda or his assignee makes no claim; if he admits the tenancy, and does not allege that Ortega has fraudulently overreached him, the Government surely has no right to claim that the land shall be considered as part of the public domain. It cannot set up Miranda to defeat Ortega, or the contrary, admitting, as it must, that either of them can show a claim worthy of confirmation in the absence of the other. Nor can third persons be admitted to interfere, to use the claim of one to defeat the other.

If the heirs or assigns of Miranda object to the issuing of the patent to Ortega or his assigns, their remedy is clearly pointed out. They can have their rights tried where the witnesses are known, where they may be examined ore tenus before the court, or before a jury, if the court chooses so to order. They have a far better tribunal to settle this question than if they were permitted to appeal to this court, to guess out the truth from conflicting depositions.

Now, if this court should enter a judgment affirming that of the District Court, it would appear as if we had decided the title of Ortega to be superior to that of Miranda, and that Miranda was the tenant of Ortega. This we are unwilling to do; for, if there be bona fide claimants of the Miranda title, such a judgment might seem to conclude them. Nor can we reverse the judgment, for this would imply that we considered Miranda had the better title, and that he or his assignees might be justified in attempting to get the judgment of this court in their favor, in this oblique and irregular manner, under the protection of the Attorney General.

We have concluded, therefore, to remand the record to the District Court, with directions to suspend further proceedings till the heirs or assigns of Juan Miranda, if they see fit so to do, may have an opportunity to contest the claim under Ortega, according to the provisions of the thirteenth section of the act of 3d March, 1851, entitled 'An act to ascertain and settle the private land claims in the State of California,' and have such further proceedings as to justice and right may appertain.

And now, to wit, May 1, 1860, the court having reconsidered the opinion and order before made in this case, do now order and adjudge that the decree of the District Court in favor of the appellees be reversed and set aside, and the record remitted for further proceedings in the case.

We do this that the District Court may not be trammelled in their future consideration of the case on all its merits, but without intimating an opinion as to the validity of the grant to Antonio Ortega. It is due to the Attorney General to say that, on the argument of this case, he challenged this grant as fraudulent; and it is because we do not think the whole evidence on that point was fully developed on the former trial below, that this order is made.


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1924

 INDEX. clxxiii Mitai"ippi Riller-Continued. project ofJ)lan recommended by Chief of Enginee1'8 for flood control of, and improvement from Head of Passes to Cape Girardeau, paill./ Mitaillippi Rwer and TributatWc, Flood Control--Continued. assurances required ofStates,etc.: main- tain control works after comple- adopted ____________________ _ board to carry on, created________ _ comP<>Sition of, and duties ______ _ executIon by Missil!8ippi River Com- 534 534 534 ~ion______________________ 535 sum authorized for________________ 535 unexpended balances for flood con- trol on, available___ ___________ 535 provisions for water transportation . facilities by barges, etc., on and tributaries _____________ ih8-981 time extended for bridging, at Arkansas City,Ark____________________ 1511 at Baton Roug«l, La_______________ 1093 at Bettendorf, Iowa_______________ 1512 atCairo, IlL__ .. __________________ 1557 at Carondelet, Mo________________ 1308 at Chester, Ill____________________ 1529 at Clearwater, Minn___________ 118, 1527 at Helena, Ark___________________ 1529 at Hickman, Ky__________________ 1532 at Natchez, Miss ___ ._ __ __ __ __ __ __ 1094 at New Orleans, La _____________ 193,732 between New Orleans and Gretna, La__________________________ 1229 at QuincyI...IlL ___ __ ___ __ · _________ 296 at Saint raul and Minneapolis, Minn_____________________ 293,1185 at Savanna, Ill ________________ 297,1158 at Tiptonville, Tenn______________ 1451 at Vicksburg, Miss________________ 1446 Mi8si88ippi Riller and Tributari68, Flood Control, project of plan submitted by Chief of Engmee1'8 for flood control of the Mississippi, and improvement from Head of Passes to Cape Girardeau, adopted____________ 534 board to carry on the project created: compensation, etc_____________ 534 to consider engineering differences between the project and plans ~mmend~. by Mississippi River-COmDl1SS10n_ ___________ 535 decisions. of President on recom- mendations of, to be followed___ 535 limit on power of. _ _______________ 535 project t:o be exec~te~ by Mississippi River COmDllSSlOn____________ 535 board to have surve~s made between Baton Rouge, La., and Cape Gi- rardeau, before undertaking flood control other than levees, etc___ 535 protection of adjacent lands by diver- sion works and outlets_________ 535 areas within floodways, etc., pending completion___________ ____ _____ 535 no postponement, etc., with executing project on east side of the river_ 535 unexpendea balances for Mississippi River flood control made avail- able________ _____ ____ ___ ______ 535 local contribution toward cost of flood control declared ~ sound prin- ciple_ _________ __ ___ ___ ______ 535 considerations for not requiring, for adopted project_ _____________ 535 assurances required of States, etc., be- fore expenditure on any con- struction item or project_______ 535 tion ________________________ _ accept flowage lands turned over to them_______________________ _ provide rights of way for levee foun- dation, Cape Girardeau to Head of Passes____________________ _ no FJlderal liability for flood damage8_ land"'or flowage rights where levees not practicable, and lands subject to . overflow, now protected by levees on opposite bank, to be acquired ____________________ _ flowage rights to be provided for addi- tional flood wate1'8 caused by di- verting main channeL________ '- resulting benefits to be considered__ _ condemnation in district coutts for . lands needed for project ______ _ assessment of value ______________ _ purchase from owner fixing a reason- able price___________________ _ donations accepted_______________ _ procedure provisions_____________ _ acquired land given to ownel'8hip of States,etc __________________ _ mapping agencies of the Government to assist in preparing necessary maps________________ ,. _______ _ application of fundA for works not in- cluded in present project______ _ levee work between ROck Island and Cape Girardeau______________ _ on outlets and tributaries, Rock Island to Head of Passes _____ _ StatA:,sl etc.; to provide rights of wayI 3iS~ per cent of cost of workJ..ana maintenance of, between .H.OCk Island and Cape Girardeau____ _ expenditures limited to $10,000,000__ in an emergency, funds for mainte- nance of a levee, if State, etc., unable to do BO ______________ _ emergen('J' fund authorized, in rescue work, etc., on tributaries threat- ened, etc., by flood, including flood of 1927 ________________ _ Mississippi River COmmil!8ion to prose- cute the project______________ _ inspection trips to be made by, to ac- quire information of conditions and flood-control 1?roblems, etc_ title, rank, etc., of pre&ldent as exec- utive officer _________________ _ appointment of present president as brigadier general of the Army __ salaries: deduction of official salary from amount fixed herewith___ _ application of n8.vipble wate1'8 restric- tions1 penaltIes, etc., to property acquired,etc________________ _ surveys previously authorized of the Mississippi and tributaries to be speedily prosecuted __________ _ projects for flood control on all tribu- tary streams of the Mil!8issippL Red River and tributaries__________ _ Yazoo River and tributaries_______ _ White River and tributaries_______ _ Arkansas River and tributaries____ _ Ohio River and tributaries________ _ Missouri River and tributaries______ _ 635 636 536 636 536 536 536 536 536 536 536 536 536 536 537 537 537 537 537 537 537 537 537 537 537 537 537 538 538 538 538 538 538 538 538

�


text: Talk:United States v. White (64 U.S. 249)/Opinion of the Court


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1925

 clxxiv MIa,uaipm RiM' OM Tribulariu, Flood Control-Continued. projects for flood control; Illinois River and tribu~ea •• ____________ _ including effect of further control of lower Milaiaaippi etc., by reeer- voir systems in drainage basins_ benefits, etc., from reeervoired wa- te~ etc____________________ _ reports to be presented to Mississippi River Commission, and its reOJ::. ommendations transmitted ~ Congress by Seoretary of War with his report_______________ _ additional sum authorized for pre- surv::t: :r~iiitanOOW.iY with ftood. control work________ _ extent, etc., of proper forestry practice on flood. control to be obtained through Secretary of Agricul- ture________________________ _ examination, etc.! by the Commission, of the M188issippi below Cape Girardeau, directed __________ _ to report on constructing levees to protect lands subject to greater overflow by levees on opposite sides of the river_____________ _ to determine, etc., effect on lands be- tween river and adjacent hills by overflow caused by levees at other points_________________ _ report with recommendations as BOon as practicable_______________ _ resurvey directed for levee from Tip- tonville to the ObIon River, m Tennessee____________________ _ if feasible, to be builL____________ _ inconsistent laws repealed___________ _ Sacramento River Calif., flood control project m;;Ufied _____________ _ total Federal contributionslimited __ interest of Members of Congress in ac- quisition of lands, forbidden ___ _ Mi8si8sippi River Commi8sion, appropriation for reimbursement, emer- gency levee construction, etc., flood of 1927, under __________ _ for flood. protection under direction ~ .by strengthening levees on wnite River, in Woodruff and Monroe Counties, Ark________ _ president of, to serve on board to carry on project for Mississippi River. etc., flood. controL ___________ _ project for flood. control of Mississippi River, etc., to be prosecuted by_ duties, etc., prescribed____________ _ president of, to be executive officer of project______________________ _ title, rank, etc______ '- __ __ __ __ __ __ _ _ appointment of present, in the Army _ salary of, and other members______ _ deduction from official salary of amount fixed herewith________ _ Mi8sissippi River, et.c ., deficiency appropriation for prosecuting work of flood controL ________ _ Mississippi River, South Branch 01 bridge authorized across, from Moline, Ill.l. . .to Rock Island ArsenaL __ _ Mississippi Kiver, TributarilJ8, . deficiency appropriation for emergency repair and rescue work, flood control oL __________________ _ INDEX. 538 538 538 538 538 538 538 538 538 538 538 539 539 539 539 539 539 359 592 534 537 537 537 537 537 537 537 930 1492 930 Mi8lillsip~ River Valley, Wild Life and Paae. Flak Re/Ufe, Upper, appropriation for station employees_ 98, 1128 for aoquiring areaa for ______ 100,559, 12lO for equipment, etc________________ 1130 Mwsisaippi ;Southern Judicial Diltrid, upon appointment of judge for the northern district, present judge for both districts to be judge of. 1422 Milllloula, Mont., deficiency appropriation for publio bl1il.clliig at__________________ 33,918 MialloulG NGliooal ForlJ8t, Mont., lands added to_____________________ 598 prior stock raising homestead entries correct!::i 3::ri~(noli;,i"td8-;ddedto: 1TarmstroBot (talk) stock raising homestead entries within lands, filed prior to April 1, 1926, allowed______________________ 1427 Mla30uri, appropriation for, aid, etc., to, for loss or damages to roads and bridges, by the floods of 1927__________ 1381 may acquire, after completion, bridge across Des Moines River, at Crotont.~owa__ ____ ____ ____ ___ 706 Mississippi ltiver, at Carondelet, Mo_ 505 at Chester, IlL _______________ 284, 291 at Hickman, Ky________________ 322 at Tiptonville, Tenn_____________ 508 Missouri River, at Arrow Rock, Mo__ 156 atBrownvilleebr- 1309 at Herman~. Mo________________ 149 at Kansas \.Jity, Kans___________ 705 at Liberty Landing, Mo _ _ _______ 155 at Mialll1, Mo__________________ 158 at Randolph___________________ 730 at Rulo________________________ 390 in Saint Louis County, Mo_______ 962 at Washington, Mo______________ 151 Mi8souri River, appropriation for bank protection for control of floods, etc., of, at Niobrara, Nebr_______________ 1380 for bank protection for control of floods, etc., of, at Yankton, S. lDak ________________________ 1380 bridge authorized across, at Arrow Rock, Mo_________________ 156,1511 at Atchison, Kans_________________ 378 at Big Blue River, Mo____________ 384 at Brownville, Nebr_______________ 1309 between Council Bluffs, Iowa, and Omaha, Nebr________________ 733 at Decatur, Nebr_________________ 392 at Glasgow, Mont ______________ 111,471 at Herm~ Mo___________ ._ _ __ _ __ 149 at Kansas \jity, Kans_ _ ___________ 704 at Liberty Landing, Mo____________ 154 at Miami, Mo____________________ 157 at Nebrask&City, Nebr___________ 444 at Niobrara, Nebr ______________ 409, 708 at Plattsmouth, Nebr_____________ 388 at Randolph, Mo_________________ 729 at RuIo, Nebr____________________ 390 near Saint Charles, Mo____________ 1511 in Saint Louis County, 1.10 ___ _____ 962 at Saint Joseph. Mo_ _ _ _ _ ___ ______ 54 at Sioux City, Iowa_______________ 1169 at Stanton, N. lDak_______________ 476 at Union, Nebr____ _______________ 1076 between Washington County, Nebr. and Harrison County, Iowa____ 194 at Washington, Mo_______________ 151

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1926

 INDEX. clxxv Mia,oun Riv-COntinued. preliminary examination.l for flood con- trol of, near Elk .l'oint, S. Dak__ time extended for bridging, at A:rro:ir Rock, Mo_______________ ~ _ __ _ at Decatur, Nebr ________________ _ at Kansaa City, Kana____________ _ at Miami, Mo___________________ _ at Nebraaka City, Nebr __________ _ at Niobrara, Nebr _______________ _ at Randolph, Mo ________________ _ at Rulo, Nebr ___________________ _ at Stanton, N. Dak______________ _ at Waahi!lgton, Mo ______________ _ at Wolf Point Mont ____________ _ Miasoun River Gft/J Tributariu, project for flood control of, to be sub- Drltted _____________________ _ Mitchel Field, Long Island, N. Y., Army Air Corpe, amounts authorised for designated buildings at_________________ _ construction authOJued of buildings on_ 1164 1536 1526 1530 1511 1525 1562 1431 1524 1475 1529 117 538 130 748, 1302 for Army Air COrps____________ 749, 1303 MitcheU, S. Dak., appropriation for public bui1~ __ 180,1043 Mitchell, Walter J., may bridge Patuxent River, near Burch, Md _________________________ 1490 Mized Claim& Commission, United State8 and Austria, appropriation for expenses________ 74, 1105 Mized Claim& Commiasion, United States and Germany. appropriation for expenses _________ 74, 1105 deficiency appropriation for expenses__ 913 settlement of awards of American claims against Germany by, under Settlement of War Claims Act of 1928 ________________ 254-255 agreement with Germany requested to extend jurisdiction of, to July 1, 1928________________________ 256 Mized Claims Commission, United States and Hungary, appropriation for expenses_________ 74, 1105 Mobile Artillery, Army, appropriation for altering, etc________ 343 Mohair, practical forms of grade of, to be sold; deposit of receipts in the Treasury _________________ 561,1212 M oietie8, Customs, appropriation for compensation in lieu • of._______________________ 167, 1033 Moline, lU., bridge authorized across South Branch of Mississippi River, to Rock Island Arsenal, from__________ 1492 Momence ConsenJancy Dietrict, may construct, etc., dam across Kanka- kee River, at Momence, Ill_____ 1345 Momence, Ill., construction, etc., of dam across Kanka- kee River, authorized at_______ 1345 Monaca, Pa., time extended for bridging Ohio River, between Rochester and________ 112 M onele, La., bridge authorized across Red River, at__________________________ 293 M~, Md., Battle, acquiring land, etc., free of ooet, to com- memorate____________________ 1444 sum authorized for suitable marter, etc__________________________ 1444 under control of Secretary of War, etc__________________________ !444 Monongahela Riller, bridge authorizeCl acrou, at Charleroi, Pa__________________________ 1180 at Fayette City, Pa_______________ 1488 between Glass}>Ort and Ciairton, Pa_ 288 at Pittsburgh,Pa_________________ 1173 at Point M&rl.on 1 Pa_______________ 395 time extended for oridging, at McKees- P,?rt, Pa_____________________ 387 at Pi~tsburgh! Pa_________________ 384 at Pomt Manon, Pa______________ · 1486 Monroe Cou1lt1/ Mia,., may bridge Tombigbee River, at Aber- deen _______________________ _ 59 Monroe, La., time extended for bridging Ouachita River,at ___________________ _ 57 Monroe Strut NB., D. C., appropriation for paVlngr etc., Rhode Island to Clinton Avenues; from ~oline tax fund_____________ 653 Montague, L. L., may bridge Columbia River, at Arling- lC~tsTarmstroBot (talk).:i)~(f.;--- 1022 appropriation for paving, etc., Colorado Avenue to Fourteenth Street; from gasoline tax fund_ ________ 1270 lContana, acceptance of State lands of, in exchange for unreserved public lands for grazing leases, etc ___ ~_________ 1430 amount to be set aside by, for con- struction of road through Crow Indian Reservation_ _________ _ 430 cooperative agreements with, and pri- vate owners, for leasmg deSig- nated area to stockmen_ _______ 380 public lands within area withdrawn leasi!TarmstroBot (talk);?or-8Ta~i~g-a~(ira~ 381 development _____________ . ;_ _ _ 381 lands in, eite of battle between Nez Perces and Army under Nelson A. Miles, setapart____________ 621 agreement for care, etc., by the State,etc__________ ~_ __ _ __ __ _ 621 designated Chief Joseph Battle Ground of the Bear's Paw______ 621 within six Drlles of a national forest may be acquired for additions thereto______________________ 1145 may bridge Missouri River, at Glas- gow _______________________ 111,471 time extended' for bridging Missouri River, at Wolf Point, by______ 117 Montana National Biaon Range, appropriation for maintenance, etc_ 558, 1209 Montclair, N. J ., deficiency appropriation for publio 33 building at__________________ _ Monterey, Calif., granted right of way, across military reservation there_____________ 1074 granted .ti.tle, etc., of Cuartellot for mu- mClp8.1 purpOBes______________ 1188

�


text:
Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 45 Part 1.djvu/1927

 • clxxvi INDEX. MonI«Iideo, Minn., p .... deficiency appropriation for publio buDdingat___________________ 33 MonI«Iideo, U~lI annual contnbuUon authorized for America.n International Insti- tute for Protection of Childhood at__________________________ 487 Mont..umG CGlUe National Monument, appropriation for addition to employees' quaJters_____________________ 1599 MonluumG National Form, Colo., lands added to_____________________ 711 computation of value 0'-__________ 711 amount to credit of Confederated Bands of Utes________________ 711 from receipts of the Forest______ 711 MOfItgOfMf'1/ Counlll, Md., bridge authorized acl'Ol!8 Potomac River between Fairfax County, Va., and_________________________ 442 Montgomery, La., bridge authorized &Cl'088 Red River, at_ 1497 Montiullo, M~nn., bridge authorized acl'Ol!8 Mississippi ..M:n-B~;,;;hiP:--- 118 appropriation for reconditioning_ _ _ ___ 586 eelling price limited_____________ 587 Monumenta, appropriation fori to Oaaae Indians who losttheirliveain World War_ 225, 1587 for, on site of battle between Sioux and Pawnee Indians in 1873____ 1587 erection authorized, on site of battle between Sioux and Pawnee In- dians in 1873_________________ 936 Monumenta Comminion, American Battle, appropriation for expenses ________ 574,1231 Monumeflt8, D. C., erection of memorial, to Samuel Gompers, authorized in public grounds_____________________ 193 sites excluded; approval of design required,etc_________________ 193 erection of, in memory of Peter M uhlen- berg,autho;zed______________ 483 erection on publio grounds of, in mem- O!y of Major General Artemas Ward, authorized_____________ 689 Moores Creek National Military Park, . N.C., appropriation for oontinuing establish- mentoL _________________ 356, 1376 deficiency apPI:Op~tion for expenses; reappropnatIOn_______________ 37 Moorhead, Minn., bridge authorized across Red River of the North, Fargo, N. Dak., to__ 472 time extended for bridging Red River of the North at, by_____________ 1534 Moran, John J., name placed on yellow fever honor roll and presented gold medal______ 1409 to.receive $125 monthly_____________ 1410 Moreau River', appropriation for half cost of bridge acrOBB, on Cheyenne River Res- ervation, S. Dak., from Indian . funds_______________________ 1487 Morehome Pariah, La., may bridge Bayou Bartholomew, at Point PleasanL______________ 57 Morqan City, La., bndge authorized acroy Atchafalaya MorglJ~:e#.a}a~:- 279 appropriation for publio buDding______ 1043 deficiency appropriation for public buUding at__________ __ ___ ____ 922 Morgarridge, W. F ., deficiency appropriation for, 1088 of postage stamps ______________ _ Mor(/U8, D. C., 27 appropriation for supplies, expenses, etc_______________________ 646, 1264 for reconstructing wharf___________ G46 ,Morocco, appropriation for agent and consul . senera! at Tangier__________ 65,1096 for Cape Spartel, etc., light on coast of_________________________ 69, 1100 for expenses of American prisoners in_ 1107 allowance for consular prisons in, 1928, 1929________________________ 1612 Morongo Indian Ruervation, Cali!., appropriation for irrigation pro j e c t on _______________________ 210, 1572 Morris, J. C., may bridge Ohio' River at Augusta, Ky., as mayor thereoL________ 433 Morrison County, Minn., may b01:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)!01:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)_~t_TarmstroBot (talk) 01:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC) 118 Morrison, Marguerite S., pier and wharf in the Deer Island thor- oughfare, Me., buDt by, legalized 764 Morristown, N. Y., bridge authorized across Saint Law- rence River, Brookville, Canada, and ________________________ 1482 Morro Puercos! Panama, aid to navigation authorized onJ.. in Pacific Ocean approach to ran- aDlaCanal___________________ 1262 Morse, E. K., may bridge Delaware River, at Bur- MoscowitTarmstroBot (talk);"- 324 investigation of official conduct o!) as district judge of New lork eastern district_ ______________ 1542 subcommittee of House of Represent atives Judiciary C01IlIIlittee to inquire if, has been guilty of acts deemed high crimes and misdemeanors________________ 1542 powers conferred; to report to House Judiciary Committee__________ 1542 . clerical, etc., assistance, and expenses authorized___________________ 1543 limitation on expenses _______ ~_____ 1543 appointment of Homer W. Hall on subcommittee, in place of Royal H_ Welder, deceased__________ 1697 M osquitoe8, Salt M IJr8h, II.ppropriation for cODlpleting survey of areas in Southern States to con- trol breeding oL______________ 175 Moths, Gypsy and Brown Tail, appropriation for investigations, etc___ 1208 forj>reventing spread of. __ __ __ _ 565, 1216 Motor Vehicle Service, Postal Service, substitutes when appointed to regular status given credit for actual time as substitut~s____________ 1016

�