The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1864-02-26
SCHOOL Ian DIS.
Important Decision of the SUI
preme Court Of the
United States.


GeorgsW ". Batchelder. The Court holds,
as we supposed, when the decision was
first announced, that fraudulent pre-emp-
tions may be successfully assailed, notwith-
standing the issuance of the patent. By
this decision the State will reap benefit
of several hundreds of thousands of dol
lars, and in this particular case will make,
at least, five thousand dollars by the de-
cision.
NO. 219-DEoRMBER TERM, 1868.
The State of Minnesota, Plaintiff in Error, VS..
George w. Batchelder.
In error to the Supreme Court of the State of
Minnesota.
Mr. Justice Nelson delivered the opinion of
the Court.
This is a writ of error to the Supreme Court
of the State of Minnesota.
The suit was brought by the the State of
Minnesota against the defendant to recover
possession of q portion of section thirty-six, q
school section in township one hundred and
ten.
The defendant set up presumption certif-
cate for the first one hundred and twenty acres,
granted to one Lewis Mills, and patent for
the same in pursuance thereof and also like
certificate to one John N. Mills, and patent
for the like number of acres, and conveyance
of both parcels to himself The plaintiff re-
piled, in substance, that the patent certificates
and patents had been ATTAINED by fraud and
imposition upon the register and receiver,
specifying particularly the acts of fraud and
imposition. To this replication there was
demurrer and joinder. We refer to the plead
ings for more full statement of the issues.
The court below gave judgment for the de-
PENDANT. There was also a trial before jury
upon the general ISSUE the rulings of the
w q
raised on the demurrer.
These questions it will be seen, involve the
title of the State of Minnesota to the school
section thirty-six in the township mentioned.
The 5th section of the act of Congress of
Feb. 26. 1857, providing for the admission of
the Territory of Minnesota into the Union, de-
clared that sections numbered 16 and Sc in ev-
cry township of the public lands, and in case
either of said sections or any part of them has
been sold or otherwise disposed of, other lands
equivalent thereto and as contiguous as may
be, shall be granted to said State for the use of
sections for a like purpose by the 18th section
of the act of March Sd, 1S49, the organic act of
the Territory of Minnesota.
After the passage OF the act for the admis-
sion of the territory into the Union, and be-
fore its acceptance by the convention, and ad-
mission, namely on the Sd March, 1857, Con-
gress passed joint resolution. approved by
the President, which provided, that where any
settlements by the erection of a dwelling
house. or the cultivation of any portion of the
land shall have been or shall be made upon the
sixteenth or thirty sixth sections (Which sec
tions have been reserved by law for the sup
port of schools in the territory before the
said sections shall have been or shall he sur
veyed, &C.. and if such s-ttlers can bring
themselves within the act of Septemb Der 4th,
1S41 (the presumption act), then the right of
preference to the sixteenth and thirty-sixth
sections or portions of them so settled and oc,
cupied, shall be in them the same as if such
sections had not been previously reserved.
This joint resolution was passed on the me-
mortal of the territorial legislature of Mime
sofa to Congress, and few days after the pas.
sage of the act providing for the admission of
the territory into the Mon, as a State.
Its necessity arose out of previous act of
Congress, passed August 4th, 1854, which de- ,
clared that the provisions of the pre- emption
act of 1871 should extend to the lands in Min
nesota Territory, whether surveyed or not
The memorial stated, that by reason of the
above act many settlers had settled and made
improvements by the erection of costly build
ings and otherwise upon farms, which, when
the government surveys were made, were
found to be included within the school sec
tions and that it would be unjust to compel
these persons to repurchase or lose their i'm
provements thus made in good faith and with
the expectation OF pre-empting the lot, and
recommended the passage of a law to the eff.
feet OF that OF the JOINT resolution.
1t is not important to inquire as to the pow
er of Congress to pass this law Independently
of any application from the territorial legisla-
ture, as the assent of the people through their
convention, by coming into the Union as a
State upon the terms proposed must be re.
garded as binding the State. The right of the
State % the school sections within it must,
therefore, be subject to the modification con-
tanned in the joint resolution, and that modif
cation is, that in case person shall have made
a settlement upon any school section by the
erection of a dwelling house on the same, or
| the cultivation of any portion of it before the
survey; and further. can bring himself within
| the provisions of the presumption act of 1871,
he shall be entitled to the section thus i'm
proved, in preference to any title of the State
This was the state of the law in respect to
| these school sections in Minnesota, at the
time of the application of Lewis and j. N.
Mills to the register and receiver for the pre-
emption of the premises in question, and of
| the issuing of the patent certificates by them.
August Is, 1857
As we have seen. the defendant who claims
under and j. N. Mills, relies on these paten:
certificates and the patents issued in pursuance
| thereof
| To these the plaintiff replies that they we've
obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. that
| L. and j. N. Mills did not settle on the pre-
| misses, nor erect dwelling house thereon, nor
make any improvements on the same, previous
\ TO the survey OI tuc ocCLiOuS ny govern
ment. and besides their false representations
to the register and receiver. they procured one
George Dazner to make false affidavit as evil
dence of the settlements, erection OF the dwell
ing houses and improvements before these Off
GERS. The court below refused to give any
effect to these facts as set forth in the plead
| ings or as offered to be proved on the issues
of facts before the jury, and the ground taker
to uphold these rulings is, that the decision o
the register and receiver and certificates issue
were conclusive upon the court. and not revis
able or to be enauired into and that the RENE
dy of the party aggrieved was by an appica
ton to the Commissioner of the Land Office o.
Secretary of the Interior.
These questions have been so often before
this court, and were SO fully considered in tn
last case, Lindsey ct al. vs.. Halves ct a.
Black r., 254, 557, $50, where the authorities
arc collected, it would be Il waste Of time t.
re examine them.-See also O'Brien vs.. Perry
] Black r., 139.
court of equity will look into the proceed
ings before the register and receiver, and ever
into those OF the land Office or other offices