The weekly Minnesotian. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1852-1858, 1856-03-15
sapreiiis Court Of the United States.
NO. 5S, DECEMBER TERM, 1855.

| VI V0luutSOl6.
Mr.. Justice Nelson delivered the opinio,
of the Court:
This is writ of error to the Suprem
Court of the Territory of Minnesota.
/ An action of trespass was brought to tn
| United States against the defendants befor,
the District Court of the First District il
the County of Goodhue, in said Territory
for an alleged trespass committed on Sec.
in Town. 112 North, of the public lands.
The Defendants justified under an Act o
Incorporation by the Legislature of sale
Territory, passed March 4, 1854, and by
(which they were empowered to construct {
Railroad from a point on the North-W Wesl
shore of Lake Superior, and near the moutl
of the St. Louis River. across the said Ter
ritory of Minnesota, by the way of St. An.
thony and St. Paul, over the Mississippi al
St. Paul, and to such point on the Northern
boundary line of the State of Iowa as the
Board of Directors might designate, which
point should be selected with reference tc
the best route to the City of Dubuque, pro.
vided the location of the road should con-
form in all respects to such route as might
be designated in any Act of Congress grant
ing lands for the construction of Railroad
through the Territory.
1t is also alleged that the Act of Incorpo-
ration also provided that any lands granted
to the Territory in aid of the construction Of
this road, should be deemed vested in fee
mple in the Company; and further, that
by an Act of Congress, passed June 20,
1854, for the purpose of aiding in the con-
struction of the road, every alternate section
of land designated by odd numbers, for six
sections in width on each side of the road
along the line, was granted to the Territory
upon the terms and conditions specified in
the said act I; and also, that the said De-
fendants caused a survey and location of the
road contemplated by the Act of Incorpora-
ton, and that said road includes the land
upon which the trespass complained of was
committed, and which is portion of one of
the sections granted to the Territory of Min
nesota by the Act of Congress aforesaid.
The Plaintiff to this defence set up, by
way of replication, that before the trespasses
complained of were committed, namely, on
the 4th of August, 1854, an act was passed
by Congress repeating the act previously
passed on the Goth of June, granting land in
aid of the construction of said road.
To this replication the Defendants de-
INJURED, and the Plaintiff joined in the de-
murer.
The District Court gave judgment for
the Defendants on the demurrer. An APP
peal was taken from this judgment to the
Supreme Court of the Territory, where,
after argument, the judgment was affirmed.
From this judgment the Plaintiff has ap-
pealed to this Court by writ of error.
The writ of error was made returnable to
this Court on the fourth Monday of Decem-
Der, 1854, and the record was brought up
by the Defendants in error and filed and
docketed on the 2lst of the same month.
The Attorney General now moves, on be-
half of the United States, to withdraw his
writ of error and discontinue the appeal to
this Court, which motion is resisted by the
Counsel for the Defendant.
After an appeal brought to the Appellate
Court, the withdrawal of or discontinuance
of the same is not matter of course but,
if the Plaintiff finds it expedient to discon-
tinue, he must first obtain leave of the
Court, e Daniels Pr 1914, IL Peters IS. }
The discontinuance is usually granted on the
application, unless some special reason
be shown by the Defendant for retaining
the case with a view to determination on
the merits. Usually the Courts will not
allow it, if the party intend at some future
time to bring new appeal, as the allowance
under such circumstances would be unjust
to the Defendant. There is no such ground
of objection here, as the Attorney General
disclaims trying the questions involved upon
the present pleadings. These pleadings, with
the exception of some questions arising upon
the powers conferred upon the Defendants
under their Act of Incorporation, confine
the issue to the effect and operation of the
Act of Congress granting the lands in aid OF
the construction of the road, and. of the sub
sequent repeating act. And these, doubt
less, comprised all the questions which the
counsel in the Court below, representing the
United States, supposed could be material.
They are presented very fully and lawyer
like upon the record, and are involved in the
judgment rem .ered in the Court below.
The Attorney General, however, AYERS,
that there are other questions than those
appearing Upon the record, which he deems
material to be brought to the consideration
of the Court, in deciding upon the force and
effect of these Acts of Congress referred to-
and without which he is unwilling to submit
the case to the final determination of this
Court, and asks therefore, for withdrawal
of the appeal. Without expressing any
opinion whether there may or may not be
questions presented, other than those ap-
pearing upon this record, bearing upon the
general matters involved in the litigation
the Court are of opinion, that the grounds
stated by the Attorney General, and opinion
expressed as the legal representative of the
Government, are sufficient to justify US in
granting leave for the discontinuance.
Some technical grounds have been pre-
sented, depending upon the rules and prac
ticc of the Court for the dismissal of the
case from the docket, and of the writ of er
ror, which we have not deemed it important
to notice, as we think the motion should bs
granted upon the general ground stated.
Motion to withdraw and discontinue th'
appeal by writ of error in this case, granted