The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1890-12-17
MUCH CLAIMED LAND.

Commissioners Croft Says II was In til,
Northern Pacific Grant.
The Helena land office is in receipt of a,
opinion rendered by Secretary Noble, of tn
Interior department.. on Nov. "a last, over
ruling one of the commissioner of the
general land office of Jan. p, 1888. Th,
matter in dispute is a quarter section o
iand in Missoula county, and the decision
OF the secretary is that it belongs to tn
Northern Pacific railroad, being within th
forty mile limit, having passed to it unde
its grant and upon the definite location O
its line of road.
Fredrick F. Kegler made a homestea,
entry on the land July 7. 1885, and on Jun,
3, 1885, published notice of his intention tt
make proof. A protest against the allow
ance of patent was made by Eliza Dun
ham. The local land officers at Missou].
gave separate opinions. The reoiste,
thought that Keglor should have patent
the receiver that he should not. No further
action was taken at Mlssoula, but an appeal
was made to the commissioner of the gen
eral land office at Washington. The com
missioner held that the only question was
as to the right, If any, of the railroad com
the claims of Dunham and KeQler
tie thereupon rejected the oompany's claim
to the land. The records show that there
were other claimants to the tract in cues.
tion. On Nov. II. 1870. John Silverthorn
hled declaratory statement alleging set
tlement on April of that year. and Viii
liam laHl, Church filed on the land on March 20,
1852, alleging settlement on Aug. 4, 1871.
After citing the above facts the secretary
says that Durham bought the improve.
ments of prior occupant and went ON the
land in the spring of 1876, and has con.
tinued there since. Subsequently in 1885,
Dunham bought the land from the North.
ern Pacific for $3.50. borrowing the money
from KeRler, to whom he executed mort
gage. A few months later Kegler, hearing
that the company's title was doubtful. made
his entry on the land, and made s., zoo
worth of improvements. Continuing the
secretary says of the decision of the COM
missioner of the land Office:
''Your Office found that the land was ex-
cepted from the withdrawal by the filings
the operation of the grant at the date of
definite location by the settlement and oc-
cupation of Dunham. The filings being of
record and prima facie value at the date of
withdrawal on general route, it was cor
Iectly held bv your Office that they operated
however, agree with the conclusion that The
occupancy OF Dunham excepted the land
from the operation of the grant on definite
Prior to the Kegley entry Dun-
ham had asserted no claim under the settle
ment laws to the tract involved. This.
with his purchase of the same, shows that
at the time when its rights under the grant
Dunham was occupying the land
by virtue of the company's title and with
the obvious intention of ultimately acquir-
ing it. That this occupancy could not pro
vent the attachment of the company's
rights is, I think, manifest. I must find
from the record before me that the right to
the land in question passed to the company
upon the definite location Of its line Of
road. The decision appealed from is ac-
cordingly reversed. and the cases of Dun
ham against Kegler is remanded for apbro-
pirate action by your office.'
Commissioner Croft, in his letter endors-
ing the secretary's opinion. directs the can
collation. of the homestead entry of Kegler.