St. Landry democrat., 1884-03-01


tltle OF the United States. Gibson VS..
: Ghauteau, 13 Wall 90, 109. Whatever
r right party may have previously ac-
]; qalFed, he is not invested with the COM
plete perfect title until issued, upon it's
:, emanatIOn the power terminates. and
the rigtlt of the government is perfect
ed. Koads vs.. Symmes, I Ohio 275: Bog
J we'll VS. Broderick, 10 Peters 1854 ::
Irvine vs.. Marshall, 26s How 55ez66 it
; was not perfect and absolute title.
, and coala not become soexcept on com,
pletetionof the road, which alone could
entltle tile company andsat the time re-
CURED by terms of the grant. Iowa r.
X. Land Grant 10 Opinions Attorney
General, 457, 462. Legal title does.not
pass until patentissues. Central Pscif-
lc Railroad Company VS.: Howard, 50,
Cal. 227, Parker VS.. Winsor, 5 Kansas.
562- ., Bronson vs.. Keokuk,, 8 Dillon Ag6.
PATTERSON Us. Taum 8, Sawyer 1854. A
failure to perform the conditions az
provided, not only was a right to pat
/ Eents forfeited bat all rights and inter
tersts III the lands, withoutg any act or
declaration OF forfeiture on she part Of
the grantee, for no estate vests unless
the conditions precedent is performed,
Wheeler VS.. Walker, 2 Conn. 1876: R6-
ear VS.. Walker, Wiss. 5s7, $50,
kents Conn. 125 Bringham on Real
Hroperty 231 Hillard on Real Prop
eTty ,52r-506 nOmroy on Contracts 3SS.
II the road was built upon a different
locatioa from the original liue,tha lanas
SO changed from the original location
OF the line could not be patsnted. the
location must be identical, two lines are
not identical because they are oecasion-
ally or even generally coinoident, 1ss
Op Atty General 457, 469 the attorney
general said: f the road was built.
upon a different line from thst of de2+
mite location, the land claimed could
not'be patented Congress could au-
thorize change ofroute. Copp's pub
Iceland laws 386Y1 Lester 537. In case
OF United States VS.. Burlington Etc.
Etc. Otto 334, aA2, the United States
Supreme Court said it is true the act OF
Congress contemplates that oae-lialf of
the lands granted should be taken on
each side of the road and tho land de-
partment could not enlarge the GUAM
tIty on one side to make up a deficieney
on the other side can the land depart
ment do by inadVerse action what il
caD not do directly. 1t would seem vain
toTcongress to place any limitation OF
Il
or manner OF constructing roads, for the
so-ealled discretionof the land depart
ment all in spite of Congress. We
maintain that Congress is the proper
power and the land department has no
power to authorize change. The
styictness with which conditions mnst
be performed is illustrated by MANY
cases IN the reports, in case ofa contract
on lot sold on mortgage. a
msll fifty feet wide by one hundred and
nifty long, it was held not complied
WITH ny building one that was rs feet
wide by one hundred feet long.
Even the purpose of the contract was
to make the vendor secure foppurchase
money thoughsthe one built cost more,
and was better adapted for the purpose
intended, than sach one as was con-
.racted for. Swain VS.. Seamens 8, Wall
s4 it is evident that the Supreme ContE
the condition made by tie
parties and not the one to be made Inv,
he court, was the one to be perform ed
Another case q: condition tiEat a de ,Doh
should be established within so rods Of
he present town of Wheatland,. was,
leld not complied with by buildf NO a
sepot within S0Tods of the town u ! sf-
erwards extended. D. g. st. P. r, r.
20. VS.. Rogers, 80 Iowa $685. A COY ditiOn
o locate road to and within tho lIimits
# town" with station at the same is
lot fulfilled by the constructi On of q,
DAD through the town and de Dot iuat
outside OF the limits. D. & st. p. r. r.
20. vs.. O'Coanor 40 Iowa, SIT. No doc
rlne ought to be invoked 3 0 sustain
decisions manifestly wrong. however
numerous, or long standing If not
anctioned by the Supreme G ourt of the
United States nor shonld it De invoked
o sustain iaovating decisif ms. for tha
Doctrines require that sue b decisions.
hould be oveSrnled. Well is, Res Adiu-
ieata, PIP $3.50. = - 4AN'
CorporotiOns always up ite in Obtain
ng favorable preceaents, and. to main
am those already gained they are in
aTIabiy represented by numerous and
b4s counsel stimulated By every motive
hat properly inspire lawyer while
either the gOveTnmen or settler are
Yer represented by CO. lnsel, their sole
ependeRce is IN their members of Con-
ress Who should exer ;ise great caution
lat no injustice may be inadvertently
one ethose who ar not represented
y eolhsel ana more especially the ae-
lal settler, who is Q a0stly ignorant of
ne laaa laws when is consideration