Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1885-06-05
r,rrRr.rrxs LAxp pecIslsss.

Digest of decisions rendered BY the
Oomuissiocer Of tie General Land Of-
ics and Secrssary Of the Interior, re-
lAtane 70 the pablic Iasd, prepared and
reported semi monthly for the Posi-
IsTKLI1sKxcE8 by Archibald Young,
astsrney at Law and practlfsoner Dc
fore the Supreme Court Of the United
States, the Legislative and ExecntiSe
Department, in all matters concerning
grants. Indian titles. mines and other
public Iands. Offics So T street, WASH
ington. d c.
The word /" district" IN acts Of March
5. Is77. and June 8, $50. relating TO
final proofs, refers TO Judicial and not
Land districts. (C0mm'r 70 WI. Moo
ney, April l, 'e6.D
A party Who knew, when he made his
entry, that his conditions were saoh as
would not enable him to comply with
the lay, cannot afterWard set up such
inability TO prevent q forfeiture Of bis
claim. Lanasdale ~. Ryan, Assistant
Comm'r, May 8, 50. ,
2. In case of death of entryman and
his sife, the patent should issue to his
heirs or deyisee. (Angustus vs. Svlsher,
Comm' 7. May 6, 1851
3. Homestead Law contemplates resi-
aence from date of entry, and claimant
cannot maintain such residence While
residing upon another tract under the
pre- smption law. (Ex parte Cawand.
Sec'y, April 30, 1885,
ADDITIONAL HOMESTEAD.
A party will not be sllovsd TO make a
second additional homestead entry. (Ex
parte Thornton. Acting See'y, April 30,
1885
PRE-EPTIoSs.
No inhexibls rule can be form ulated
as to what constitutes good faith in set,
Element and residence. Condition Of
party and circumstances in each ease
considered. (rhoraton vs.. Ricard, Act.
Sec'y, April 80, 1885
2. Occasional visits to land and scant
improvements not evidence of good
faith. (Oleaves vs.. French, Sec'y, Ap Il
80. 1851
8. Application Of claimant for the
cancellation of bis filing without preju
dice uron the ground of a prior settle
ment en- the tract, rejected because II
was only alleged that prior settler had
performed q few trivial acts of settle
ment which were not followed up by
residence. Ex parte Birch, Comm
May 20. 1885.
TIMER CULTURE.
Contest affidavit against timber cul
| ture entry may be made upon informs
| ton and belief. Ii should be accompa
MED by afidavit showing party's quail
| fications, but will ast be held defective
on this account unless obiaction made
at hearing. (Butler W. NOLAN, Acting
See'y, April 80, 1885
2. Work done by entryman's vendor
| or agent equivalent TO work done BY
himself. (Beeken vs. Martin, Sec'y
April 10, 1857
Credit for fees and commission paid
ON entry cancelled for illegality allowed
to party who applies to re enter SAINT
tract. (Ex psrts Boyd, Asst. Comm'r
April "a, 1851
PRIVATE LAND CLAIMS.
The essential foundation for reeoe
niZable claim not appearing, ii shoul(
not be considered. Peralta grant
Comm'r to Sur. General, Arizona, MAJ
2, 1882
RAILROADS.
Land withdrawn for and afterwart
relinquished by railroad company, moi
included in later grant and withdraw
which took effect prior TO such relin
quishment Hastings 4 Dakota r. r
Co. VS.. Maxwell, Sec'y. April 81. 1885,
| MINERALS.
Surveys of mining claims need not bt
amended to conform to requirements Of
Mineral Circular of Dec. 4, 1884, If en-
try was allowed prior 20 receipt of cir
cular at local office. (Circnlsr May IL
1885.
NoTE.-This circular removes the sus
pension of q large number Of mineral
entries, and was made on my application
in case of Congress lode claim.