Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1881-07-17
THE REORGANIZATION SUIT.
A Plain Statement of the Issues I'M
vOlved in the Contest.

vOived in the Contest.
The large amount Of property involved
and the confused and contradictory state
ments with regard to this controversy
have conveyed the impression that it is
complicated case, involving difficult ant
abstruse questions. The fact is exactly tn,
reverse. The real questions in the case ar,
few and simple. Rose and others on tn,
14th day Of January, 1872, located a claim
for 800 feet on the Eureka lode, and they
md their grantees have ever since worked
and possessed the same according to law
In March, 1878, the Richmond Company
through It's then President, John j. CARR
gan, located 1900 feet on the same lode,
called the St. George claim, which conflict
ed with the location OF Rose and others,
In August, 1873, the Richmond Company,
having procured q deed from Carrigan, ap.
piled for a United States patent. Rose
and others protested, and all proceedings
were stayed in the Land Office. Rose and
others in due time brought suit to deter.
mine the question Of the right of posses
sion. While this suit was pending and un-
determined, and while by law all proceed
ings were stayed and while the officers of the
Land Department had no authority to act,
the Richmond Company obtained a patent.
After obtaining such patent the Richmond
Company put in an amended answer in the
case formerly commenced by Rose, setting
| up the patent which is known as the st.
| George patent. The statutes of the United
| States provide that where there is an adj
verse claim filed pending an application
for patent, that all proceedings shall be
stayed, and the question of right
of possession shall be tried in
4 Court of competent jurisdiction, and
after the decision of such Court, that the
Government will issue its patent in pur-
snance of such decision. The statutes Of
Nevada provide that the District Courts
shall be the Courts Of competent iurisdic-
ton to try such cases, and that when the
fact that an application for q patent has
been made, is made to appear by the COM
plainant, that such Court shall have full
jurisdiction to try and determine the rights
Of the parties. The case of Rose and
others was commenced and prosecuted as
required by law, and the Court had full
and complete jurisdiction Of the case at the
time the Commissioner OF the General
Land Office issued Inexperienced patent.
1t is now conceded that a patent cannot be
issued under such circumstances. Secre-
taries Schurz and Kirkwood have both
held that, pending proceedings in the local
Court to determine the right of purchase,
that the Department has no jurisdiction to
grant a patent. Judge Rising, in this
same case, held the same doctrine. In
fact it does not seem to be q serious quss-
ton. The statutes OF the United States
and Of the State OF Nevada are clear and
positive that while the case is pending in
the State Court, that it, the State Court,
has jurisdiction, and the Department is
without power or authority to issue. q pa
tent. There seems to be no difficulty,
then, as to the merits of the case. The
claim of Rose and others, now owned by
the Albion Consolidated, is admitted to be
prior and superior to the st. George claim.
There is no serious question in
the case outside of the pretended
patent, and unless the officers of
the Land Department can, in violation
OF the statutes Of the United States, and of
the State OF Nevada, deprive a State Court
Of Jurisdiction, there is no question Of the
right Of the Albion Company to recover.
But a patent issued without authority Of
law is, by all the authorities and by COM
mon sense, void. And there is no serious
question but that the patent in the present
case is absolutely void as against the own
ers OF the Uncle Sam. The struggle on
the part OF the Richmond Company, how
ever, is to prevent the Court from passing
upon the merits of the case. Their objec-
tons are purely technical, and OF a char
acter never sustained in a court Of justice.
The statutes Of Nevada all declare that
there shall be but one form of action, and
that both law and equity shall be deter
mined therein. They also provide that
the only rules by which the suficiency Of
pleadings shall be determined are enter
tanned in those statutes. They also pro-
vide that the only pleading on the part Of
the defendant shall be the answer and the
demurrer to the plaintiffs complaint.
There were demurrers in this case, but
they were disposed Of by the Court. The
defendant is also permitted under the
statute to file a supplemental answer upon
the acquisition Of title pending the litiga-
ton. The statute provides, however, that
if such matter is set up it shall be deemed
c~ontroverted by the plaintiff without fur
Their pleading. The defendant, the Rich
mond Company, as before stated, after OBJ
tanning the patent, filed a supplemental
answer setting it up. When this was
done the reply Of the plaintiffs, Rose and
OlutIst Wdb uiuuc ny VIC law tbCs WoiS
not allowed to put in a further pleading.
The plaintiffs in this case, Rose and others,
did not prove upon their case their priority
of possession and superior rights under the
laws OF Congress, and local rules, and
rested. The defendant, the Richmond
Company, their patent obtained as before
stated. The Judge admitted the evidence,
subject TO be stricken out or disregarded,
il the same should become immaterial upon
the development of all the facts in the case.
The plaintiffs, Rose and others, then Of
fered in evidence the record Of application
for patent, which shows the application,
protest, stay Of proceedings, n all the
other matters necessary and proper to es-
tablish the fact that all the questions re-
lating to the case were pending in the Court,
and that the action OF the Department in
| granting the patent was void, so far as it
affected the rights OF the plaintiff. To
this Mr.. Wren objected, and contended
that. although the express provisions OF
the statute and the decision OF all the
Courts upon a like provision OF the stat
utes. allows evidence in rebuttal of new
matter set up in defendants answer OF the
character proposed in this case, yet he
positively asserted that it could not be adj
| mitted here. Why, he was unable to state.
He did, however, show that it could not be
| done under other systems O. pleadings,
where different pleadings were required,
which nobody denied. The attorneys for
the Albion here read authorities
for five or six hours, directly
in point, upon this question. But
1t would hardly seem that authorities
were necessary when the statute provides
for just this kind Of pleadings, and when
1t is admitted that the plaintiff in this
action has put In all the ~pleadings that
the statute will allow. 1t seems strange
that the time Of the Court should be 90.
cupied ty so plain 8 proposition. How
ever, a. this IA q very important case,
Judge Rives seems disposed to hear oil
that can be said on the subject, and &C
for from being censured for such course