Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1885-12-23
AN INTERESTING DECISION.

What the Supreme Court of the
United states Has to Say Of Town
Sites and Mineral Lands. a.
The Supreme Court of the United States
has made q decision of great Importance
In 0 conflict between the claimant OF 8
placer clam and q town site in Dakota.
The decision brings on the question Of
people occupying mineral land for other
purposes than mining. In effect II decides
that people cannot get a good title TO land
known as mineral, unless it is purchased
for the purpose Of mining. The decision
ia very long and interesting, and we shall
give but q syllabus as follows;
First-No title from the United States
to land known at the timeof sale TO be
valuable for its minerals OF gold, silver,
cinnabar or copper can be obtained under
the presumption or homestead laws, or in
any other way than as prescribed by the
laws especially authorizing the sale OF
such lands, except in the States Of Michi-
gan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri and
Kansas.
Second-A certificate Of purchase Of
mineral land upon an entry of the same
by @ claimant at the local Land Office, il
no adverse claim is filed with the Register
and Receiver, and the entry Is not can
celled or dissfirmed by the officers OF the
Land Department at Washington. passes
the right of the Governments to him, and,
90 against the acquisition or title by any
other party, is equivalent to 9 patent.
The land thereby ceases to be the subject
Of sale by tho Government. which there
after holds the legal title in trust for the
holder of the certificate.
Third-The officers of the Land Depart
ment have no authority to insert in q
patent any other terms than those of con-
veyance, with ~recitals showing q compli.
ance with the law, and the conditions
which it prescribed. The patent of q
placer mining claim carries with it the
title to the surface included within the
lines Of the mining location. as we'll as to
the land beneath the surface.
Fourth-There can be no color Of title
in an occupant OF land who does not hold
under an instrument or proceeding, or
law purporting to transfer the title or give
the right OF possession. Nor can good
faith be- affirmed by a party in holding
adversely. where he knows he has no title,
and that under the law, which be ia pre-
sumed to know, he can acquire none. SO
held where, in an action Of ejectment for
known mineral land by a holder of a
patent of the United States, and the ocou-
pant set up q claim to improvements made
thereon under q statute Of Dakota,
which provides that. sin an action for
the recovery Of real property, upon
which permanent improvements have
been made by a defendant, or those
un der whom be claims. holding under
col or of title. adversely to the claim Of the
plaintiff, in good faith, the value of such
improvements must DO allowed az q coun-
ter claim by such defendant" he not hav-
ing taken any proceedings to acquire the
title under the laws Of Congress authoriz-
ing the sale of such lands, or to acquire
the right of possession under the local
customs or rules Of miners Of the district.
Fifth-It would seem that there may be
an entry OF q town site, even though
within its limits mineral lands are found,
the entry and the patent being inopera-
tive as to all lands known at the time to
be valuable for it's minerals, or discov-
cred to be rich before their occupation
and improvement for residences or bust
ness under the town site title.