Los Angeles daily herald., 1889-03-20
AN IMPORTANT DECISION.
The Right 10 Bring suit Ag ainst
the Governments.


the Governments.
An important decision has been rem
.dered by United States Circuit Judge
SAWYER in the case of the Southern
Pacific Railroad Company VS.. The
United States. By the decision the
demurrer of the United States Attorney
is overruled, and the proposition is laid
down that the United States can be sued
by subject. The decision states that
this is petition in equity to this Court
under the Act of Congress of March 8,
1887, entitled can Act to provide for the
bringing of suits against the Government
of the United States," setting up claim
to tract of land against the United
States, and asking that its title to the
land be established in the petition by the
decree of this Court. The lands des-
cribed in the petition are odd numbered
sections lying in the limits of the lands
granted to the Southern Pacific Railroad
Company by Act of Congress, approved
July II, 1885. The facts alleged, if true,
show that the lands were subject to the
grant, and that the petitioner has per-
formed all the necessary conditions. Its
right to a patent is shown, yetthe proper
officers refuse to issue patent as re-
quired by law. The petitioner prays
that it may be adjudged entitled to q
patent, and that it may have such further
relief as may be agreeable to equity.
The United States demurs to the petit
tion on the ground that the Court has no
jurisdiction in such suit, and that the
United States cannot be sued in such a
case. 1t is contended that the "claims"
provided for in the act are legal, and
that there is no Jurisdiction in the cases
in equity. Again it is contended that
the word "claim" is used in this act in
restrictive sense, and extends only to
claims for money and does not embrace
claims of title to lands as against the
United States.
The Supreme Court held that the prior
acts conferring Jurisdiction on the Court
of Claims do not embrace cases of equity
jurisdiction. But the several acts have
been amended from time to time and the
jurisdiction extended until the act of
March 8, 1887, was passed. This act
provides, so far as applicable to the case
in hand, THAT the Court of Claims shall
have jurisdiction to hear all claims
founded upon the Constitution or any
contract, express or implied, With the
Government of the United States
in respect of which claims the party
would be entitled to redress against the
United States, either in court of law,
equity or admiralty, if the United States
were suable."
The Court then SAYS:
In this case the claim is founded on a statute
of the United States and upon a statutory con-
tract and the value of the matter in dispute
exceeds 81 900 and is less than $4,000. If
the matters alleged, then, constitute claim,
within the meaning of that term, as used in
the statute, the United States are suable there
over it, concurrent with the Court of Claims
After careful consideration of the matter,
within the meaning of the act The statute is
remedial, and remedial statutes are to be liber-
ally construed. The act is in accordance with
the spirit OF the age. According to the author
tiles cited, even England Is in advance of the
United States in waving its privilege not to be
sued in its courts by subject.
The word claim" is very broad and compre-
hensive in its signifcation-quite as compre-
hensfve as any of its synonyms demand-pre-
struetion is not to be limited to money demands
is evident from other expressions in the act, as
IN Section 5, wherein the contents Of the peti
tiona re prescribed. 1t requires tnat the peti-
tioner shall set forth the nature of his claim
and succinct statement of the facts upon
which the claim is based, the money and other
for a judgment or decree upon the facts and the
law" Section 6: "Ihe plaintiff shall not have
judgment or decree for his claim UNLESS"
etc. Section Il "If the suit be in equity or
admiralty, the Court shall proceed in the same
according to the rules OF such courts" Section
any of the executive departments which
involves controverted questions of fact or
refer them to the Court Of Claims. There are
many "claims," or matters" besides many de-
mands pending" in the various departments.
the Treasury Deparsment, constitute but a
small fraction of the claims" or matters"
pending in the executive departments. Yet the
any of the executive departments" AS gen.
eral proposition, bill in equity is rarely filed
merely to establish money. demand, without
other relief. The amount of money recovered
is very seldom if ever, the sole matter covered
by decree: Yet judgments and DEGREES, s,writs
of the provisions of the Act, clearly indi-
eating, not only that equitable Jurisdiction
is conferred, bat that the claims or mat
mere money demands. case strictly
analogous Jones vs.. The United States, 35
Fed. R.. 631) was decided by Deadly, District
oregon in July last in which he discussed this
point with great fullness and his usual ability,
and in which he held that the word "claim, as
used in the statute, included claim to land.
and upheld the jurisdiction of the Court; |
can add nothing more to what he said in that
case, and content myself with referring to
the decision and expressing my concurrence in
the views stated by him upon the point.
The demurrer must be overruled with leave
to answer, and 1t is SO ordered.
The natural effect of this decision is
that judgment of the proper court de-
Gliding party to be entitled to patent
by reason Of compliance with the laws
of the United States, is equivalent to the
patent itself. There are many persons
who have bought railroad lands, but
who, on account of the dilatoriness of
the Land Department at Washington,
have been waiting for years for their
Datanta Under thia daciaion tho claim
can be proved up in Court of Records,
and judgment obtained, which, being
equivalent to patent, will enable such
holders as require to borrow money
upon the land to do SO.