St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-07-15

ming, being the land set OF TO the 1ndlan
Chief Buffalo at the Indian treaty of
Sept. 80. 1854. and Which was afterwards
disposed of by Buffalo to Armstrong,
and is now recorded with the govern
ment documents.
The tract of land which Chief Buffalo
had designated by his written selection
did not correspond with the section
lines when the land came to be sur
yeyed, and it was found that certain
Indian traders occupied part OF it.
After lengthy correspondence with
the department., Benjamin &. Arm
strong and the other appointees OF But
falo received other lands in lieu OF
lands designated in BuffalO's selection.
They were patented to Armstrong and
the other appOintees in 1S5S-abOut tive
years after the deed made to Prentice.
After said patent, Armstrong and the
other appointees conveyed the land to
John M. Gilman, Daniel S. Cash and
James II. Kelly. The defendants claim
title through the aforementioned deeds.
Prentice claims title through the deed
from Benjamin u. Armstrong, made
prior to the date of the patents.
The court found that the large stone
or rock described in the deed from Arm
strong to Prentice as the beginning OF
the boundary Of the tract conveyed. is
well identified and was we'll known to
the few people familiar with the place,
and is recognizable now. A mile square
from that point would wholly depart
from the shore of st. Louis bay and
would cover from half to three-fifths
land and the remainder water of Lake
Superior.
No part of the land involved in this
suit is contained in the mile square deed
to Prentice.
The court ordered judgment for the
defendants. In the opinion delivered
by Judge Miller. among other things.
he said that the title under which Prem
tice claims was involved in the case of
Prentice VS.. Stearns, which case went
to the supreme court Of the United
States, where judgment of the court be-
low against Prentice was affirmed.
Judge Miller further says:
In the opinion of the court, Judge
Miller said: After full reconsidera
ton of the subject, in the light of such
new facts as the counsel for the plaintiff
supposed they have produced on the
present hearing, we remain of the Opin-
| ion we were Oh the former trial. The
first descriptive clause of the deed from
| Armstrong to Prentice is of tract of
land a mile square, beginning at a large
stone or rock. which, as matter of
fact we find in the present case is now
Identified. and was well known at the
time the deed was made. 1t would be
/ difficult, if the beginning point is we'll
aScertained, to imagine that Armstrong
| intended to convey any other land, or
any other interest in land, or interest
| i'll any other land than that so clearly
described. And if that description is to
| stand as part OF the deed made by
| Armstrong to Prentice, it leaves no
$doubt where the land was. And there
| is no occasion to resort to any inference
that he meant any other land than that.
! 1t is now found as a fact that this
boundary would include surface from
/ one-half to three-fourths of which is
/ land, and the remainder is water of
Lake Superior. For that reason, and
for others which may be hereafter con-
sidered counsel for plaintiff reject
totally this part Of the description of
the land found in the conveyance, and
proceed to consider the remaining part,
which says: ''Being the land set off to
the Indian Chief Buffalo at the Indian
\ treaty of Sept. 80, 1854, and was after
wards disposed of by said Buffalo to
| said Armstrong, and is now recorded
with the government documents"
Ii we could reject the first description
| as incorrect and erroneous and come to
the latter part of it, we are constrained
to hold that this alone is not sufficiently
! certain to convey any definite tract OF
land one mile square, or nearly so.
Ii this deed is void because, that de.
| Scription is either erroneous, as is al
| legged in the first clause, OR is so uncer
| tain as regards the second clause that II
| hQ ~
surveyed, then the deed is simply 8
void instrument. To avoid this diff
/ Guilty counsel insists that the object Of
the grantor and the grantee in this deco
was another and different object thar
the sale and conveyance of a specific
! and definite piece of land. They say
4 that the reference to the land set off tt
the Indian Chief Buffalo meant not any
| definite piece of land, but any LAND
which might come to Buffalo or to hi:
1 ppOinteeS, of whom Armstrong is one
by the further proceedings of the gov
eminent of the United States in tina
case; and that no matter where sucl
land was found, provided it was within
the limits of the land granted by thu
Chippewa treaty. then the deed from
Armstrong to Prentice was intended tt
convey such after acquired Interests
w
the United States.
We do not see anything IN the Who'll,
deed or transaction between Armstrong
and Prentice that points to or indicates
any such construction of it. Boil
branches of the description are definite
as to the land conveyed, and treat it a
a piece of land we'll described, wei
H. known and we'll defined. Of course
any man endeavoring to ascertain VIVA
land was conveyed under that gran
! would suppose that when he found thu
stone or rock that he had bought mile
square according to the points of tn
compass, the southwest corner of which
commenced on that rock. He would no
suppose that he had bought something
that might be substituted in lieu of tina
mile square by future proceedings o
the government of the United States.
We are not able. therefore, to hOlt
with counsel for plaintiff that if thi
conveyance does not carry the title t.
any lands which can be aScertained b,
that description in the deed, that resor
can be had to the alternative, that tn
deed was intended to convey any LAM
that might ultimately GENE to Arm
strong under the treaty and under thu
selection and under the assignment tt
Buffalo.
Mr.. Prentice and Judge Dillon, one 0
his attorneys, said to GLOBE reporter
that they are satisfied with the finding
of the court. They will now know how
to proceed in the other causes yet to b.
tried, and, in the meantime. will go t.
the supreme court with the case de
cided, which was against the Northern
Pacific road.
F. B. Kellogg. of counsel for the de
Tense, said: I'VE consider the decision
as entirely satisfactory to the defend
ants. We think it does not give Prem
| tice the least hope. He will undoubt
eddy appeal and keep up the fight TO
the purpose of making settlement will
: Duluth property owners"
FAT AND FRAIL.