Emmons County record. [volume] (Williamsport, D.T. [i.e. N.D.]) 1884-current, 1890-08-29

year has had failure that at the time
the land was opened to entry ne was
without means with which to pay the ex.
penses of the entry, and he has been so
up to the present time (Junc "a, 1s90);
that he desires said tract as homestead,
and had always intended the same as
such that unless he is permltted to enter
SAID land as his homestead he will lose all
his improvements and the labor of four
years that upon rendering his applica-
ton to your office he found that some
(afiants) application is refused by you
that he is Informed and believes that said
person has all the time known of atlantis
right to the land, and IN making his en-
try does so with the intent of depriving
att1ant Of his improvements.
In his appeal the point is made that the
adverse claimant, Olsen, had knowledge
of the applicants residence upon and i'm
provement of the land that the appli.
cant clearly has the strongest possible
equity, while any other claimant must
stand upon an unjust, lnequitable and
technical right"
The records show that the duplicate
plat was filed in your office March 4, 1889,
entries would be received for land in said
township April 4, 1889. Burge did not
place his entry of record within three
months after the filing Of the township
plat, as he should have dsne because, as
he alleges, by reason of the failure Of his
| crops he did not have means with which
to meet the expenses incident thereto.
| From his statements, which are duly cor
reborated, it appears that prior to making
his application he, with his family, lived
on the land over four years and made ex-
tensive and valuable improvements there
on. NO person contemplating making
entry Tor this tract, who had taken the
precautlon which one is expected to take
ana examined the land before making ap.
plicatlon, could have failed to be aware
Of the fact that there was an actual settler
residing thereon. Therefore, at the time
he made entry, Olsen must have known
the above facts. This being so, he can
not be considered as acting In good faith
in attempting, by seeming compliance
with the forms Of law" to disposscss a
worthy settler Of the home he built up
after years of labor.
In somewhat similar case BLAKE VS..
Marsh, 10 L: D. 612) the department re-
fused TO- allow an intervening adverse
claim to defeat the prior rights of an ac-
tual settler who had neglected to perfect
his entry within the prescribed time.
I
ment will protect an actual settler against
an adverse claim the case Of Trainor vs..
Stitzel q L. D. 39O may be cited, wherein
an amendment was allowed, although the
application therefor was not made until a
year and three months after entry, and
after the adverse claim had been placed
of record, it beinng held that "a home
stead entry may be amended so as to EN-.
brace the land covered by the actual set
tlement and improvements of the entry
man; and such right of amendment is
superior to an intervening adverse claim
made with full knowledge Of the facts"
In view of the foregoing you will notify
OLSEN, whose postofice address appears
to be Emmonsburg, N. D., that lie will
be allowed sixty days from notice within
which,to show cause why his entry sheuld
not be cancelled for conflict with the
prior right of Burge. Also, advise Burge
of this decision. His address is Winches-
ter, N. d. Very respectfully,
W. NJ. STONE,
Assistant Commissioner.