The Mason County journal. [volume] (Shelton, W.T.) 1886-1927, 1890-10-10
An Interesting Decision.

One who occupies land as tenant
OF an entryman, acquires no right as a
settler, on the relinquishmen of the
entry, that can be set up to defeat the
intervening entry of another. A settl-
eIpent claim ON land covered by the
entry of another attaches instantly on
the cancellation of such entry. No
rights as against the Government are
secured by II settlement on land with
drawn from entry, but, as between two
claimants for such land, priority of set
Element may be considered Tie con
sistancy of these principles and their
application III practice are shown by
two recent decisions of the Interior
Department.
In the first case the land was embra
ced in homestead entry which was
relinquished and cancelled. The party
who filed the REIMBURSEMENT (not the
entry-man) at the same time filed his
application for homestead entry
which Was allowed. Eight DAYS later
another party applied to make home
stead entry of the tract, alleging that
he established his settlement thereon
seven months prior to his application.
and this application Was allowed and
his entry recorded.
The entry-man, who had filed the
REIMBURSEMENT, thereupon applied to
have this last entry Cancelled, and at a
hearing l. was shown that when the
last entry man went upon the land, he
tild SO as the tenant of the original
entry-man, and continued thereon as
such tenant up to the time of the filing
OF The REIMBURSEMENT of the original
entry. 1t was ruled in the decis on
that he acquired no rights by virtue of
his occupancy of the land as the ten
ant OF the original entrv-man, while
the land WAS covered by the original
entry ;and, not having gone upon the
land with the intention of making IL
his home and to acquire it under the
settlement laws, his right as a settler
ana not attach upon the cancellation
OF the original entry; but could only
attach from the moment he went
thereon with the intention of making
such settlement, and performed some
act indicative of such intent. His en-
try was cinceled and the entry of the
party who filed the REIMBURSEMENT
allowed to stand.
In the other case the Land was re-
leased from a reservation made under
an executive order, and at the same
time a party entered it as a homesteatl
Two months later another party ;,pplied
To enter If as homestead, alleging
settlement three months before. The
hrst party WAS Call d upon to show
cause why his entry should not he
Cancelled for C naict with this prior
settl@m ut claim. At the hearingit
Was ~ win that ten days prior to'lbe
day ON winch the land was rele,sad.I
rom iron, res rvation, and on which the
hrst purity made his entry, the second
party bought out some improvements
on the land. that he had tberetofof..
oaen occupying and using these |
improvements with brother. nndar .
lease from a Thrill party, and toll |
possession as owner of the :mnrova- |
menls at the date of his purchase of
them. That hsnceforth be Continued |
IN p' session m liking use OF the land
ana improvements for farming purpo-
SEES, AMI established his residence ~,
the land about twenty days after the
oate OF the first party's homestead
entry. 's"u
IL WIS hsld that while the first par-
tys entry Was tile first and only lao ,
ming for the land at the time Of tb...i
from the reservation. it was
not the only legal claim. That whore
anu 10 anywise reserved from appli-
.a''on' Is released from such reserva-
''on, settlement thereon prior TO such
.el. ase, especially if attended by tle
possession and ownership Of valuable /
whether made or pur s