The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1860-06-01

Important Opinion by the Supreme
Court.

Important Opinion by the Supreme
Court.
We present below, the opinion of the Su-
preme Court, prepared by Justice ArwArER
in the case of SAMUEL LEEcH vs.. JOHN G..
RAuGH involving the title to lots in the town
Of Mankato. The decision is a very impor
tant one, involving as it does, the proper
construction of the TOWNSHIP law of 1874 {:
Samuel Leech, Appellant, agt. John c. Rauch,
Appellee.
Opinion Of At,oater, Justice.
This was an action brought by the Appellant in
the District Court for the sixth Judicial District
to recover lot number ten, in block r. in the
town of Mankato. The Complaint alleges that
on the l4th of February, 1853, the plaintiff. in
conjunction with other parties therein named,
selected lands in which lot 10, block ~, are
embraced, being 3l8 8S-l00th acres, on the
town site of Mankato that at the time stated
the company took possession of, and made set.
Element on the lands under the municipal pre-
empti0n law of 1874, and by themselves and
those holding under them, built upon and con-
tinuOusly occupied, and ever since have occu.
pied said lands as a town. That until the gov
others occupied said lands and have always so
continued, that such occupation was notorious,
and that the defendant had notice thereof. That
as soon as the survey was made by the govern
ment and the plots returned to the local office,
to wit, about January 25th, 1856, the plaintiff
and others procured the proper Judge to make
an application in due form to enter the lands
under the provisions of the act of Congress for
the use and benefit of the occupants according
to their respective interests. The complaint
further alleges, that such proceedings were af.
forwards had before the United States Land
Office, that on the sixth of March 1858, the
lands were entered by the Hon. G. E. Elan
Judge who made the application, due notice of
which was given. That the settlement and oc.
cupation upon proof of which, the entry was
made, was that of the plaintiff and others, and
those holding under them, and that each SUBJ
division of the lands had been continuously &C.
cupied by said parties. The plaintiff further al
leges that by conveyance from the several par
ties he became owner in severalty of the lot in
question, and claims to receive the fee simple
thereof.
The answer denies the selection and settle
ment of the lands as stated in the complaint
and also the continuous occupatiOn--and denies
that the persons named in the complaint ever
maintained improvements upon or occupied
for town purposes any of the lands, except
that two OF the persons named settled up
on claims embracing parts of the lands seper
ately and occupied until 1856, then abandoned
them; that plaintiff as an individual built Ger.
tain houses on the lands but never personal
ly occupied the same nor resided thereon,
and occupied none of the lots except those
built upon. 1t further denies notoriety
of occupation, and denies that entry was
made under or pursuant to application
of Judge Chatfield, but AYERS that it was
pursuant to application of his successor,
Judge Flandrau, and denies that the set
Element upon which the Government parted
with its titles, was that of the parties named in
the complaint, and AYERS that it was the settle
ment of the actual residents of the town of
Mankato. 1t also denies information of relin-
quishment and conveyance to Leech. The an
swer also denies that the parties alleged to
have relinquished and conveyed to plaintiff,
ever settled upon and improved lot 10, block
q. and AYERS that only two OF the parties ever
lived upon the lands described in the com.
plant. The answer AYERS settlement by the
defendant upon the lot in question about June
2Sth, 1856, and continuous occupancy since,
that it was Government land, and that defend
ants entry was made before the title passed
from the United States, and that the lot was
vacant upon the defendants entry.
The evidence taken upon the trial of the case
is voluminous, and numerous exceptions were
taken to the rulings of the Court upon the re.
ception of evidence, and the charge to the
jury. Much of this evidence is irrelevant TO
the real issues in the case. These issues are
presented in d very inartistic form by the
pleadings, which are also encountered by mat
ter having no legitimate connection with the
real issues in the case. 1t will be unnecessary
to notice more than two or three of these eX-
ceptiOns, as correct ruling npOn the points
involved in these will be decisive of the case.
The plaintiff claims the lot in question as
one of the occupants of the town site of Man.
1xokN nntnr 1nrk hn kNfG ofA Nav
23d, 1874. That part of the act applicable to
this case reads as follows: "That whenever
any portion of the surveyed public lands has
been or shall be settled upon and occupied as
town site, and therefore not subject to entry
under the existing presumption laws, it shall
be lawful in case such town or place shall be
Incorporated, for the corporate authorities
thereof, and if not incorporated, for the Judge
of the County Court for the county in which
such town may be situated, to enter at the
proper land office and at the minimum price,
the land so settled and occupied in trust for the
several use and benefit of the occupants thereof
according to their respective interests. The
execution of which trust, as to the disposal of
the lots in such town, and the proceeds of the
sale thereof to be conducted under such rules
and regulations as may be prescribed by the
legislative authority of the State or Territory
in which the same is situated"
Under this act the United States Government
permits the entry of certain quantity of land
which has been settled upon and occupied as
town ste," and designates the party who is
to hold the title "in trust for the several use
and benefit of the occupants thereof, according
to their respective interests" For a party
claiming, under this act, one of the first
requisites is to show that the land he
claims has been entered in accordance with
the provisions of the law, and that
the government has parted with its title to the
same. Upon this branch of the case, nothing
is pertinent save an inquiry into the simple
fact, as to whether the proper Land Office or
Department has authorized the entry of the
land in question as town site. The State
courts have nothing to do with the question as
to whether such entry was properly or imprOp.
erly made, as to whether sufficient or legal
proof was made to entitle the applicant to
enter; nor, indeed as to whether there was any
proof at all. Those are questions entirely and
only within the province of the Register and
thereon, (or that of the proper department
when appeal is taken,) must be final and con
elusive in the matter. The duplicate of the
proper Land Office on such entry is evidence
that the tract therein described has been "set
tied upon and occupied as town site" in &C.
c0rdance with the law, and that fact cannot be
litigated in the State courts. Consequently,
any evidence having for its object to prove that
the settlement and occupation, under which
the entry was made, was insufficient for such
purpose, is irrelevant and improper, save as
proving who the occupants were in behalf of
whom the application was made.
In order to show right of recovery in this
action, the plaintiff must prove that he was an
occupant" of the premises, in the serse in.
tended in the act of Congress above referred
fn v1lo oil Al <ho 1o;n