St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1884-07-03

plaintiff, suing upon this deed and nothing
else-which does not describe the land in
controversy between the parties to the suit
cannot recover, because the deed does not
describe the particular land, the specific
land, or piece or parcel Of land now held by
defendant. 1t is not the piece or parcel of
land which this plaintiff is suing for, and
which this defendant is charged with being
in possession of.
On the other hand, if twas an attempt to
convey the interest, whatever it was, that had
come to Armstrong by reason of the treaty,
| and by reason of the action Of Buffalo under
it, then another consideration pre-
vailed, and we can enquire,
whether the plaintiff is in position to ques-
ton the title to that unascertained piece of
land. The consideration, outside of the
language of the deed, is very strongly in
favor of the first view, and is repelled by
nothing in it, that the parties intended to
convey, and understood the deed described
piece of land, so that it could be identified.
The presumptions are very strong, and the
language is in favor of this view. The deed
describes mile square, with a given start
| ing point which can be identified, and which
has been identified in this proof. And then
taking into consideration the language,
Commencing at said rock, and running
east one mile, north one mile, west one mile,
south one mile to the place of beginning.n
This is a specific description of described
piece or parcel of land. This is piece of land
that surveyor can go to tomorrow and lay
off easily, by showing him the rock which
was proved to be at an ascertained point. He
can go there and lay it off easily Except that
it runs into the water) and he can make that
selection of the section of land described
there, and make survey Of it, and it will
not touch the land in controversy by half
mile.
1t therefore requires the entire rejection
of that first part of the description as so
much surplusage, and as inconsistent with
what the plaintiffs now claim, in order that
we may find the sufficiency of that deed. The
language following does not fairly negative
that; it merely implies that this section of
land which we have above described, this
mile square, tits s'The lands set off to the
Indian Chief Buffalo at the Indian treaty
OF September the Both, 1854,
which was afterwards disposed of
by said Buffalo to said Armstrong, and is
now recordedin the government documents. -
Ii we read tha', as it seems to me it should
be read, that on that date, Buffalo having
first made the treaty, and made the selection
of the mile square, according to the des-
cription of his selection which we have read,
which does not mention the rock, nor
does it mention the lines east and west,-
but undertakes to describe where it is by
saying, ''That it is lying on the west shore of
st. Louis Bay, Minnesota Territory, i'm
mediately above and adjoining Minnesota
point.''
Now if we suppose that when Armstrong
undertook tO oOnveU tho undivided balf Of
his property to Prentice that no government
surveys had been made, no attempt made to
identify the land, that Armstrong as well as
Buffalo were satisfied at the time of making
the designation that he had designated
mile square of land within that
treaty limits, which could be easily ascertain
ed and laid off by the surveyors when they
come to make the U. S. surveys, and that
Armstrong was undertaking to convey that
piece of land so selected, and you have all
that is necessary to fill every requirement of
the descriptive part of this grant.
But there is no description of the land, ex-
cept the implication which may arise from
the language in the deed, which CONVEYS to
Prentice whatever may be coming to Arm
strong by reason of this transaction This is
the meaning of the language, and to put any
other construction upon it, is to strain
point, and to suppose it possible to strike
out that first portion of the deed which gives
a clear description of the land and its loca-
ton and boundaries. Without celebrating this
view of the subject we are of the opinion
that that deed from Armstrong to Prentice
conveys no interest in the land in contro-
yersy here upon which the action Of eject
ment can be sustained.
We further find that this deed to Prentice,
which We find did not convey the land, is
otherwise good deed. There is an obiec-'
tion to the want of two witnesses, but that is
cured by a subsequent Act of the Minnesota
legislature. And we are of opinion that it
was sufficiently acknowledged to have admit
ted it to record, and was so acknowledged
and recorded, so that with regard to the deed
its only defect was its want of description.
We are of the opinion that under the stat
utes of Minnesota the deed made to Mr. Gil
man, under which the defendants claim, is
merely quitclaim deed. 1t is equivalent to
the conveyance of such interests as Arm
strong had when he made it. Secondly, if
Armstrong, as we find, had conveyed the !
other undivided one-half by valid deed for
the land now in controversy,
MrSA Gilman and his grantee
would take nothing under his conveyance:
because Armstrong had nothing to convey
But since the grantees under Gilman, the
defendants, are in possession, it is for the
plaintiff to show that he himself has a good
title. He has not made out any title to this
particular piece of land, and he is in no con
dition to enquire into defects in the defend
ants title.
We are of opinion in the first place, as
to the law of the case, that the treaty having
been fulfilled by the United States by the
conveyance of the land, that no qnestion
arises about their being a donation, or gift,
or grant for value, or anything of that kind
Secondly, we are of opinion that Buffalo's
attempt in the designation and appointment
as to the appointment was valid In point of
fact that the United States never granted,
and never pointed out that particular piece
of land which it seems he supposed he had
selected.
In the third place, we are of opinion that
Armstrong, by this conveyance, after he had
become entitled to the interest which Buffalo
had appointed to all four of them-that being
a quarter section to each-that that convey
ance he made to Prentice might have been a
valid deed assigning the undivided one-half
of Armstrong's interest, under the treaty,
had he used language appropriate to that
purpose, but that he did not do So
We also find that the undivided half of
this property is worth the sum of $4,000.
Judgment is ordered for the defendants.
Desk Privileges at the Convention.
CHICAGO, July. 2.-Austin H. Brown, of
u.