Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1885-06-24
LAND DECISION.
Judge Sawyer's Opinion in a United
States Patent Case.

Judge Sawyer's Opinion in a United
States Patent Case.
Judge Sawyer in the United States Circuit
Court at San Francisco. yesterday morning,
handed down decision in the case of the
United States against Ellen Rose 1t is as
follows:
In the Circuit Court of the United States,
Ninth Circuit District of California. United
States vs. Ellen Rose. No. 1896.
This is another suit in which, as i'll the ease
of the United States Us. The San Jacinto Tin
Company, upon an indemnity against costs
given TO the Government by parties in interest
the indemnifying parties have been permitted
to prosecute suit i'll the name of the United
States against the defendant. to set aside
United States patent. upon the ground that il
was obtained upon fraudulent Representations
made to the Register of the Land Office sup
ported by perjury in the aflidavitS fled stating
the land to be ou-mineral vacant land when
il is alleged 10 have been. in fact. known min
eral land, and 10 have been i'll the actual pos
session OF private parties claiming and work
ing it as mineral land at the time of the en-
try in the Land Office and of the issue of the
patent. The fraud and perjury alleged con-
Stitute the grounds upon which it is sought
to vacate the patent In United States vs.
White Q Law, IDS. although entertained at the
time grave doubts as 10 its applicability. !
finally held upon the demurrer that the case
was governed by the principle established in
the United States VS.. Flint, Law, OILS; affirmed
bank, 10l United States, 5l9 and dismissed the
bill. | thought it better that the point should
be settled by the supreme Court for that and all
other contemplated cases Mt that stage of the
case. The value of the properly turned out TO
be insufficient to give the Supreme Court juris
dlc!ion. The question again arose in Uuited
States vs. Minor. and in other cases wherein
the value was also insufficient TO give the SUI
prcnlc Court jurisdiction, and ii was maniteStly
likely to arise i'll numerous other eases in this
State. Still. being in doubt, and not fully sat
g- In 4
and the question being one certain to arise in
a gleat number of other eases, / invited the
District Judge TO sit with me, and though still
not fully satisfied on the point / adhered to my
ruling in Whites ease.
The District Judge, though somewhat in
doubt, taking different view of the question
we divided in opinion, and upon the request OF
the counsel for complainant. certified division
OF opinion TO the Supreme Court. Judgment
was thereupon suspended in this and all other
cases involving :he same questions then pend
ing, until the point should lie authoritatively
settled i'll that case
Toward the close of the last tenn Minor case
was decided by the Supreme Court. and distin-
gui>hed from the eases upon which ! had ruled:
and the views adopted in Whites and Minors
cases were oyerruled. The decision in Minors
case therefore authoritatiyely settles i'll favor of
complainant the main question presented by the
demurrer. and relied on by defendant in this
case.
Several questions are made as to the Sufli-
cheney OF some of the material allegations the
bill. However it might be on special demurrer
think upon the whole that they are sufficient
upon general demurrer which only goes to a
want of equity in the bill, assuming the defend
ant to be correct upon all other points discussed
Upon the authority of United Sta'es VS.. Minor
sup. CT Rsp., $50, the demurrer must be over
ruled, and leave given to answer to the bill on
or before the rule day in August; and it is So or
dered.
The decision is an important one, as it
affects great many United States patents
to land