Los Angeles daily herald., 1889-10-04
A LAND DECISION.
one That Will Interest Purchasers
From the Railroads.

One That Will Interest Purchasers
From the Railroads.
The following decision, furnished by
the attorneys of Wesley Coble, respond
emit in the case of Wright vs. Coble, in
an application to purchase under the act
Of March 3, 1887, forwarded by the Com
missioner of the General Land Office to
the Register and Receiver Of the United
States Land Office here, may prove
interesting to claimants of public lands,
especially to those who have entered into
contracts to purchase lands from certain
railroad companies:
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
WASHINGTON, D. O., August l, 1881
TO the Commissioner Of the General Land
Office: .
SIR have considered the appeal of
Charles II. Wright from the decision of
your Office dated June %, 1888, rejecting
his application to PURCHASE the NV. a
of section 81, 7. N, R. s W., 8. B. M,
Los Angeles, California, under the pro-
vision of the act of March 8, 1887 ga
Stat. 550). The records show that the
land 10 within the primary limits of the
grant by Act of Congress, approved March
8, 1871 (16 Stat. 57S), to the Southern
Pacific Railroad Company (branch
line), and was listed by said
company on December 6, 1884.
The claim of the company was rejected
by the decision OF the. Department on
January IL, 1888, (6 L. D. esq., and said
Coble was allowed to make homestead
entry of the land, which he did on Feb
ruary II, 1883, according to said decision
of your office. On June 4, 1883, the
Register transmitted said application to
purchase, which was filed on May Goth,
same year. Wright alleges that he and
one Hughes purchased said land from
said company on December 10, 1884,
while residing on adjoining land, and
agreed to pay the sum of 50 so per acre !;
that they paid a part of the purchase
price, to-wit: $l02. 40, and contracted in
writing with said company to pay the
balance, with interest at the rate of seven
per cent, on December 10, 1889; that
about the same time they purchased the
improvements of settler or equatter for
the sum of $50; that on December 3,
1885, said Wright bought out the interest
of said Hughes for the sum of $12O, who
duly assigned to said Wright his inter
est; that the applicant has since paid the
annual interest, amounting to $22. 40, and
has improved said land by developing
spring and bringing water to his ad-
joining land, where there was no water !;
that except for the water upon the land,
it would be of little value, being noun
famous; that said land was entered on
February 18th, 1888, by said Coble,
under the homestead laws mo. 1876 !;
that said land was selected by said COM
pany on December 9Th, 1884, per list
No. IS, and was claimed by said COM
pany as recurring to them under said
grant, when they contracted to convey
the land to the applicant and said
Hughes as aforesaid; that said Wright is
. bona Jide purchaser of said land from
said company and claims the right of
purchase under the fourth section of
said act of 1887; that at the time said
Coble settled on said land, and applied
to make homestead entry thereof, he was
told by the applicant that he claimed
the land.
Your office rejected the land applica-
ton for the reason that the section under
which he claims has reference solely to
lands which have been enormously certi-
fed or patented to q railroad company
and is not applicable to the case at bar,
because the land in question has not
been certified or patented to said company.
Your Office also held that the application
could not be allowed under the fifth section
of said act for the reason that the
express terms of the provision state
s'thst the section shall not apply to
lands settled upon subsequent to the
frst day of September, 1882, by persons
claiming to enter the same under settle
ment laws of the United States as to
which the same as aforesaid shall be en-
titled to prove up and enter as in other
like cases." The decision appealed
from is in harmony with the ruling of
this Department. On November %,
1887, the Department formulated instruc-
tions, having previously taken the ad
vice of the Honorable Attorney General
in 6 L. D. 272.6, which states that: :
GAS to the lands which have been
enormously certified or patented to the
company (being the lands referred to in
the second section) the fourth section
of the Act provides for the disposal of
such Of those lands as may have been
sold by the company to citizens of the
United States or persons who have de.
clared their intention" etc.
1t is quite evident, therefore, that the
second and fourth sections refer to lands
the title to which has passed by certifi-
cation or patent, and not as commended
by the appellant, to lands which had
been listed, but not certified or patented
to the grantee. With reference to the
fifth section of said Act, the
circular states: "Under the last pro-
viso of said section, however, if settle
ment was made on said lands subsequent
to December 1, 1882, by persons claiming
the same under the settlement laws of
the United States, it will defeat the right
of the purchaser whether said purchase
was made prior to or subsequent to
December, 1882, and the settler will be
allowed to prove up for said lands as in
other like cases." This provision in said
circular was quoted with approval by
Mr.. Secretary Villas in the case of Roesch-
laub va. Union Pacific Railway Com
pany, ct al. (6 L. D. 1907. See also
Samuel L. Campbell (8 L. D. 27), cir
.cular of February Is, 1889 (idem. S5O-D
It is not denied that the land in question
was settled upon by the homestead
settler subsequently to December l, 1882
since the land has not been certified or
patented, it follows that the application
was properly rejected.
The decision of your Office is accord
ingly affirmed, and the papers in the
case are herewith returned. Very
respectfully,
JouN w Nopyy Soc r. n