The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1889-01-24

If the act of Congress had intended to
give this extra land to the city, there
was no OCCASION to use the
word occupant" the very word that
does not denote the city authorities.
The public" or the corporation" or
the "clty" could and would have been
used. He then referred to the case of
Kint VS.. Denver. which he urged
was parallel with the one now
at issue, in which the plaintiff won.
Mr.. Linck had, he thought, all the
necessary qualification to entitle him
to enter upon and hold the lands in
question. The general demurrer to the
complaint was sustained on the theory
that these lands passed to the city in
the same sense that they would pass to
any private proprietor, and that they
belonged to the city to speculate upon,
and to hold waiting for a rise in prices
IN the same way as any speculator
could, regardless of their general public
policy that all the public lands are
held only until such time as they can
be used for bona fde settlers.
MR.. sHEEKs REPLIED
in behalf of the city. The complaint
shows, he said, that plaintiff is not the
owner of the property; that tns legal
title is in another as trustee, and held
for the benefit Of others; that it was
purchased from the government and
paid for, not with the money of plain :
tiff. but with the money of Others To
use his own expression, plaintiff pro-
poses to appropriate" it to himself. 1t
being the property of others he would,
without any offer to purchase or the
tender of any price, assign it to him
self. But, as has often been the case
with those vino attempted to appropri-
ate other peoples property, he has met
with an obstacle. He now supplicates
court of equity to make his proposed
way to the acquisition of this
property easy for him. While the law
bsometimes deals with the appropriations
of other peoples property. we are not
aware of any principle of equity that
will aid party in his efforts to take
another's property. "of the value Of
over i've thousand dollars" for a mere
nominal sum; and that without any
contract or agreement and against the
will of the owner. The plaintiff shows
no legal or equitable title to the PROF.
erty nor any right to the possession
When the entry of the land was
made, the price paid 10 and received by
the government, the contract between
the government and those interested in
the purchase was complete and the
rights of parties fixed at that date.
Such is the general law of contracts,
and such also is the law in CASES of this
kind
In Cofeld VS.. McClelland, the court
speaking of the TOWNSHIP act, uses the
following language: "This regulating
act of the Territory (Oolorado) is in
harmony with the acts of Congress. 1t
expresses more explicitly than do those
acts the statement that the occupation
and possession which gives the right is
that which exists at the time of the
entry of the lands by the probate judge.
Those in possession of the land when
the entry shall be made by the probate
judge are the persons for whom he holes
the land i'll trust and to whom he is to
make the respective deeds. Although
less explicitly declared, this is the con
struction and meaning of the acts of
Congress Also"
Under the regulations made by the
Territorial statute, this plaintiff has
acquired no rights whatever. The Con-
greisional law provides as follows .
Sec. 2391-Any act of the trustees not
made in conformity to the regulations
alluded to in Sec 1887 shall be void. I"
If therefore the trustee should attempt
to aid pla ntif in his proposed appro-
priation, the act of such trustee would
be unlawful and void, It would seem
to be evident that the trustee has the
legal right to protect the property
from s1ch unlawful appropriation.
We come now to one of plain
tiff's propositions with which we
fully agree, viz: That in this case
plaintiff has DO plain, speedy or
any remedy at law. Yet it must be
true that if he was in possession right
fully, or if he has any right to the pro-
perty Or the possession, he has plain.
speedy and adequate remedy at law.
He would have it inferred from his
complaint that he was rightfully in
possession under q lawfnl or equitable
claim; that he was forcibly and I'M
lawfully ousted by defendants and that
his possession is detained from him by
defendants without right. If such are
the facts the law gives him ample
remedy without coming into court of
equity. A suit in equity or an injunc-
ton cannot be made to serve the pur-
pose of an action in ejeotment.
The case was taken under advisement.