Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1888-06-28
FEMALE PRE.EMPTORs.
Can "A Woman Pre-empt Land and Marry
Without Losing 1t?

Can "A Woman Pre-empt Land and Marry
Without Losing 1t?
A particularly interesting land case has
just been concluded by Receiver Leigh
and Register Bradford of the local Land
Office. 1t arose ont of the presumption
claim of Miss Agnes NJ. Crandall to 100
&C e. of SUnoma land, and is of much i'm
portance to the single women in the West
who are holding land under the pre-emp-
ton law. After filing her application Miss
Crandall married a gentleman named Perry,
and about two weeks ago transmitted her
final proof, together with the purchase
money, so that she could obtain title to the
land. 1t was rejected by the Receiver on
the ground that having married after she
filed and before proving up, she was dis
qualified and had forfeited her right of pre-
emption.
The Register, however, held that the
proof should be accepted and the entry
allowed, maintaining that Miss Crandall's
marriage did not disgualify her from TAX
ing this claim by presumption right, as she
prove the land after becoming Mrs. Perry
and until she submitted her final proof
There being a difference of opinion by
the local officials, the case will now be pre-
sented to the Commissioner of the General
Land Office for his decision.
1t is now the law by the Secretary's deci-
sion that where a single woman claiming
public land by homestead right marries,
that fact does not disqualiiy her from per-
fecting her title if she continues to live on
the land.
Receiver Leigh states that his action in
Miss Crandall's case was based upon long
line of decisions, emphatically denying the
right claimed by Register Bradford, and
holding that q fap1 ala nj lOcf har
right on marriage.
A distinction has heretofore been made
in favor of unmarried female homestead
settlers, by which their marriage has not
disqualified them from completing their
title. 1t even went so far as to permit the
spouses to file and prove up both claims
after their union. But even this has been
swept away by Commissioners decision,
so recent as only a fortnight ago. The
Commissioner held that they must select
which claim to perfect and surrender the
other. This decision, however, is in con-
fict with the superior decisions of the Sec
retaries of the Interior, and will be disre-
garded.
In speaking of the difference between
| pre- emption and homestead claims, Mr..
Leigh said What the policy of the law
is TOR the distinction can with difficulty be
explained upon any other hypothesis than
that every citizen has a right 20 home
stead, regardless of the amount of land he
may own, while in a presumption claim
| the prerequisite is that the claimant shall
not own 800 acres of land. The Govern
ment is very liberal in its laws on home
steads, while it pursues an opposite course
in respect to Prescriptions. An endeavor
has been made in the present Congress,
and in fact in many former ones, to abolish
presumption entirely, and confine filings to
homestead claims, but for some reason the
legislation has always been barred"
The Receiver was strongly OF the opinion
that this view of Miss Crandalls filing
would be adopted by the General Land
Office, and suggested that it would be we'll
for female pre-emptors to prove up before
marriage. In this way trouble and expense
would be avo!ded.-lS f. Call.