The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1856-03-13

Il
We copy hon TIE Mws<ss,sm The toicxins
decision Of the Supreme Coart o. The Unis@
States. IN the cAse u Tia Minnesota and North
Western Railroad Cos,hsv, delivered s.
weets since.
Srrbsnr Cocns o. rss U. 5,
No. 81, De-. Term, 1855,
The United Ststcs. Plaisiis IN Errcr. vs.. Tbs
Nirns~cssAnd n orth- Western Railroad Com
pany. In error 10 The Supsemc Ccort o
Minaenctn.
Mr.. Justice Nehsoa delivered the opn;oI o
the Court
This Is q writ u error to the Supreme Cosr'
q the Territory u Minnesota.
An action "a trcspa9 vas brought W tn
Usited States aeaisst the Defendants before ths
District Court Of The First District In thu
county Of Goodhue, In said Territory, for nj
alleged trcspasx committed on Sec. 3, IN Town
liz north, ct the public lands.
The DESCENDANTS lusti6cd under An Act II In
corporation by The Legislature Of said Terri
tory. passed March 4, 1854, and by which they
were empowered TO construct Railroad tron
a point On the North. wsst shore Of Lake Sape
rior. ard near the mouth Of the 81. Louis river
across the said Trritory 81 Minnesota, by ths
way Of 81 Anthouy and ST. Paul, over the
Misisaippi al 81 Pasl, aud 10 ssch point OF
the northern boundary line Of the State o.
Iowa a. the Board Of Directors might d,sig
nate, which point should he selected with ~
ference to the bcst route TO the city Of Dubuque
provided the location Of the read should con
lorm in al respects 10 such route Is might h
designated in any act Of Congcss granting
lanh for the construction II Railroad through
the Territory,
II h also alleged that tho Act Of Incopor~
ton also provided that any lands granted ID
the Territory in aid Of the construction Vi thi,
road, should he deeuNd vcstel In me simple ID
the Company and further, that by an Act o.
Congress. passed june 20. 1854. Tor the pur
pose Of aiding In the construction Of the road
every alternate section Of land designated b,
odd numbers, Tor six sections In width Oh cscl
side of the road along the line. was granted Il
tho Territory upon the terms and conditions
specified in tho said act and also, that the SAID
defendants caused survey and location Of ths
road contemplated by the Act q Incorporation
and that said road includes the land upon which
the trxpass complained Of wsH committed. and
which Is portion Of one Of the sections grant
81 10 81 lie ferriiory q Minnesota Gy Tie acf o
Congress aforesaid.
The plaintiff 10 this defence ut sp, by way
Of replication, that before the trespasscs com
planned ~ were committed namely, on the <ti
Of August, 1884, all act WAS passcd by Con
gre~ rcpealing the act previously passed Oh
the 18th Of June. granting land IN AID Of thu
construction u said road.
To this replotion the Defendants dcmarrel
and the Plaintiff joined In the demurrer.
The District Court gave u Judgment Cor the
Defendants on the demurrer. An appeal was
taken from this Judgment 10 the Suprrms
Court Of the Territory, where. after argument
the jadrIncnt was affirmed From this jadg,
mcnt the Plaintiff has appealed to this Court
by writ Of error.
The writ O. error VISA made rturnablc 10
this Court on the fourth Monday Of December,
1854, and the record WAS brought up by the
Defendants in error and filed and dockesei on
the 2lst Of the sarnc month.
The Attorney Gcrcral nov moves, ON behalf
Of the United Stairs, % withdraw his writ oi
error and discontinue the appeal 70 this Coart
which motion Is resisted by the Counsel for ti'e
DEFENDANT
After an appeal brought 10 the Appellate
Court, the withdrawal IL ~ diseontinuancc Of
thu sa,pe d not a matter Of course but, IL the
Plaintiff finds Il eppeiicnt 10 discontinue, he
must first obtain leave IL the Court, u Daniels
Pr. 1914. II Peters So Tie disoontinuance
Is usually granted on the application, unless
some special reason be shown by the Defendant
for retaining the case with view To deterni
nation on the merits. Usually the Courts will
not allow II, Il the party intend a, somc future
time 10 bring new appeal, rs the allowance
under such circumstances would lie unjust 10
the Defendant. There is 10 such ground q Oh.
lection here. ~ The Attorney General disclan,s
trying the questions involved upon tbs p~esenf
pls~dings These pleAdingy, with the exception
N some quertions arising upon the powers con,
ERRED upon the Dcscpdants under their Art o
Incorporation, cpniine the issue % the eject ADD
operation o. the Act OF Congr,ss granting tho
lands IN aid n the construction Of the road, and
OF the Subsequent repeating, Ct And Ties,
doubtless cnnaprised oil the questions shicb the
counsel Ia tho Court below, repres@nting The
United STATES, supposed cyad he paaissial.---
1hny are presented very fully ard iawyr.iike
upon the record and are involved In the judg'
moot rendered In The Court beIow.
The Attorney Gearsl. however, ayers, tia;
there are other questions than thosc Appearing
upon the record. which he deems material to
h. brought TO the constellation Of the Court
in deciding upon the force and oiiet u these
Acts Of Congress referred ", aud without
which be " nuw hing 10 submit the caAe 70 the
final determination Of this Coart, ard as.ts
thcsefore. Er withdrawal Of the appeal
WIthoa, expressing any opinion whether tliere
msy o. may M, be questions pfcsentsd other
than those Appearing upon This record. bearing
upon The general matters Involved In tLc iii.
cation, Tie Court arc OF opinion. that the
grounds stated by tbs Attorney GseraL and
ctin,cr erprexze-i a. De legal representatives II
tie Government, are sufNeien, " Justify es In
granting leave for the diScatinaance. hs
sosae teciin,cal grounds have b@n presented
depending spoa tho ru,o and practice o. Ia.
Court Tor Tn dispissal Of Tie case from ths
docket, and Of t,ie writ Of error which We have
not deemed Il importhBi % notice. ~ VIC tbinb
the motion should be granted upon tbs gs-ne
raj ground stated.
Motion 10 withdraw and diseoniinos the AZ,
peal by writ Of error IN ibis cas granted