Liberal Republican. [volume] (Dallas, Or.) 1872-1???, 1873-12-06
LAMs-DAvENPoRT DECISION.

Mr. Justice MliioE ueiiSoioo sno
opinion of the Court.
The bill in this case was filed In the
Circuit Court for the District of
Oregon By the present appellants, who
claim an interest in the property as
heirs Of Daniel Lownsdale against
other heirs Of Lownsdale, for partition
Of lots two, Eve, six, and seven, of
block thirteen, of the city of Portland.
The appellee, Davenport, who was In
possession Of the lots, and claimed to
own them, was made defendant ON
that account, In the progress of the
suit, Davenport filed a cross>bill, in
which, while admittlng the legal title
to the lots to be in the plaintiffs and
the other heirs of Lownsdale before the
Ceprt, no asserted that he was the
rightfpl and equitable owner of them,
aad prayed for q decree against the
hsirs of Lownsdale for conveyance Of
ths title.
The, Court decreed as prayed By
Davenport, and plaintiffs in the
original bill bring this appeal.
The tract of land which includes the
lots in controversy, was claimed by
Lownsdale under the act OF Congress
called the Oregon Donation Act,
passed September 27, 1850, 3 U. s.
Statutes, 1876; and a patent certificate
issued to him in his lifetime. But
before the patent was issued, both he
and his wife died, and under the
general act of Congress, applicable TO
such cases, the title vested in the
Lownsdale heirs when the patent was
delivered. There il, therefore, no
question that at the commencement Of
che suit the legal title to the lots was
in the sppellees, the heirs Of
Lownsdale.
The equity which Davenport sets up
In his cross. bill, arises from transactions
aDtecedent to the issue of the patent
certificate of Lownsdale, and indeed
apeecedent to the enactment Of the
aonasion law By Congress, under which
Lowasdals's title originated.
It Is not necessary 10 recits in this
oplpion oil Of those transactions II 10
sufficient here TO say that several years
before that act was passed, and before
any act of Congress existed by which
tale 10 the land could be acquired,
settlement on and cultivation of large
trsct Of land which includes the lots in
CONTROVERSY, had been mads, and o
to~n laid of into lots, and lots sold, and
that these are part of the present city
Of Portland. OF course, no legal title
vested in any one by these
proceedings, for that remained In the
United ssates-all Of which was we'll
known and undisputed. But it was
equally well known that these
possessory rights and improvements
placed on the soil, were by the policy
Of the Government generally protected,
90 far. at least, as to give priority Of
che right to purchase whenever the
land was offered for sale, and where
NO special reason existed to the
contrary. And though these rights Or
claims rested ON no statute, or any
positive promise, the general recogni-
tion of them in the end by the
Government, and its disposition to
protect meritorious and actual settlers,
who were the pioneers Of emigration in
the new territories, gave decided and
well-understood value to these claims
They we're. the subject Of bargain and
Gale, and, 40 among tbs parties to ssoh
eeOtrssts they were valid. Ths righ,
ef she United ssates to dispose Of hss
own property 10 undispused. and 70
make rules by which the lands OF the
Government may be sold or given
away ia acknowledged; but subject to
these well>known principles, parties in
possession Of the soil might make valid
contracts, even concerning the title,
predicated upon the Hypothesis that
they might thereafter lawfully acquire
tpe title, except in cases whore
Congress had imposed restrictions on
such contracts. { sparrow vs. Strong,
D Wall, OF; Myers VS. Croft, 1a Wall,
300; Davenport vs Lamb, 13 Wall,
1Al8 Thredgili va Pintard, IL How,