St. Paul daily globe., 1891-01-14
rhe Gotham millionaire Is
Awarded the Hastings &
Dakota Land Grant.
Judge Nelson Rules That he
Was Not to Blame for the
Long Delay.
Some Interesting Jurispru-
dence Contributed by the
Supreme Court.
The Minneapolis Census Cases
to Be Continued and ST.
PauI'S to Be Heard.

A decision was rendered by Judge
Nelson, of the United States circuit
court, yesterday, in the case OF Russell
Sage against The st. Paul, Saltwater d
Taylor's Falls Railway Company. This
case involves the question OF large
land grant to the Hastings & Dakota
road, to the rights of which road kuSseH
Sage succeeded, and in whose favor the
court rendered the Judgment. the
cause was commenced number OF
wears ago, and was heard and de-
cided by Judge Brewer, of the
United States supreme court, III
1889. A rehearing was, however,
allowed upon the merits of the case.
The decision by Judge Brewer, as well
as at the present hearing, was in favor
of Russell Sage. In his decision Judge
Nelson says, in referring to the former
decision: Judge Brewer decided that,
as between two land grants to railroads,
the definite location of line of road,
under later grant, if the road is
finished. will take all lands within the
limits Of the grant which have not been
selected as indemnity lands under an
egrlieT grant.
THE lands in controversy are within
the place limits of the Hastings d Da-
v.
of the road of the defendant and the
definite location of the Hastings u Da-
kota was made and the map filed before
any selection was made by the defend
ant
mo opinion was offered by Judge
Brewer of the effect of a withdrawal of
lands within the indemnity limits OF the
defendants road by competent author
ity. before the definite location of the
Hastings IL Dakota road in determining
the rights of the parties, | presume for
the reason that there is no plenary proof
of a withdrawal of the lands within the
indemnity limits earlier than August,
1865, more than year after the route OF
the Hastings q Dakota road was To-
Gated. 1t is urged by defendants coun-
sci that the action is barred by sec
tion 6. chapter &C, title 2, Gen
of the opinion that in this case no lapse
of time short of the period which is the
statutory limitation prescribed for ac-
tons at law for the recovery of real
property, which is twenty years. should
be applied, yet, as | may be in error in
so holding, | shall consider the statute
presented and the point urged by coun-
sci, that this action is one to enforce
trust or compel an accounting, and is
barred by the seventh subsection Of
section &, chapter SO, title 2. General
Statutes of Minnesota, and that more
than six years have elapsed since
the cause of the action accrued. The
state of Minnesota acquired title in the
lands in controversy upon the definite
location of The line of road of the Hast
ings IL Dakota railway, and before the
conveyance of the same to the defend
with the act of congress and the law Of
the state transferring the grant to it,
was Justly entitled to the lands viii CHI
were conveyed TO the defendant. The
state held the lands in trust for the
road under an act of congress, of which
the defendant was bound to take notice.
I'm equity the transfer by the state to
the defendant was an act in fraud of
the rights OF the complainant, and is
within the strict definition of legal or
constructive fraud. Upon the facts it
appears that the defendant, with notice
of trust in the state, acquired the legal
title TO LANDS which eQuitably belonged
10 the complainant, and therefore is
charged with the same trust and is a
trustee for it. The fraud derives its
character from the consequences of the
act in relation to others, and this is
what the law conStrues to be fraud.
1.-The seventh subdivision of section 6.
chapter &C, does not apply, but rather
the sixth subdivision, for the relief
sought is based upon the legal or con-
structive fraud. and there is no evidence
that the Hastings & Dakota Railway
company had knowledge of the convey
ance to the defendant by the state six
years before the commencement of the
cause of action, so as to set in motion
the statute. 1t follows, therefore, that
the complainant is entitled to decree"