The L'Anse sentinel. (L'Anse, L.S., Mich.) 18??-current, 1891-09-26


from decision upon review"
The second ground urged in sid
action to dismiss the appeal necessitates
an examination of the testimony and
record in the case.
1t Dppears that a certificate of right
TO Q ter eleven and 3-10) acres under
section 23oG of the II. S. was issued to
Ellington by this Office November 4,
1882, and ON d, cember II, 1884, Abram
Mathews made application to enter the
land in dispute in the name of said
Ellington under section 2306 of the II.
s. This apple alton was rejected be-
cause the land was within the limits Of
the Marquette and Ontonagon railroad
company. Afterwards on August 16,
1887, plaintiff made homestead applica.
tion to enter said land which was also
rejected because in conflict with said
railroad grant. When the grant to said
railroad company was declared to have
been forfeited and the land restored to
the public DOMAIN, a hearing was order
ed to determine the rights OF the parties
herein to the land in dispute. At said
hearing as hereinbefore stated, the
parties subm tied an agreed statement
of facts in which it is stipulated and
Mathews admits that the said Ellington
on July II, 1882, executed and acknow-
lodged power Of attorney to Mathews
and also an other instrument in blank in
which he authorized his attorney to sell
and transfer any lands acquired under
said certificate and "to receive for his
own use and benefit any moneys or pro-
perty the proceeds of the sale of
said lands, or any interest therein, or
arising from any contract in relation
thereto-and 1 hereby release to my
said attorney all claim to any of the
proceeds of any such sale-agreeing
that 1 will, at any time, without further
consideration, execute and deliver or
cause to be executed, acknowledged
and delivered, such further assurance
of title to said property as said attorney,
substitutes or assigns may require" I"
Ellington also executed and signed two
blank applications, on the usual forms
as used by the land Office, for locating
soldiers additional homestead certif-
Gates, upon the payment to Ellington on
said date of n money consideration by
the firm of Sweet & Co., of Indianapo-
lis, Indiana. These papers were deliv-
cred to 81 firm with the intention of
to them all the interest and
claim he might have to any land locat-
ed upon and entered by said certificate.
The certificate and papers camo into
the hands of Mathews before any at |
tempt was made to locate any lands |
nnder said certificate and he was au-
to fill out said papers. slocate |
the application and insert his name in |
,he power of attorney, which he did. |
Ellington had no interest in the certii-
cate when the name was filed ont and |
ocated by Mathews and has no interest
n the entry or land in dispute. All the |
steps taken in the case have been under
md by virtue of said powers of attorney.
Said transfer and the power of attorney
Mathews to prosecute or de-
end any suit against said land mt his
,wn cost.
1t is clear from the foregoing agreed
statement of facts that Ellington at the
late of said application was made to
inter said land and at the date of the
learing had no interest whatever in the
and in dispute either direct or remote.
The appeal in this case Is signed
Abram N. Ellington by A. Mathews,
Itty.," and only purports to be the ap-
zeal of said Ellington, while Mathews
$ the only and real party in interest.
It is a principle of law too well settled
o need discussion that party having
10 interest whatever in the matters in
has no right to appeal on
lis own behalf. If, however, the assign
nent OF said certificate was legal and
ubstituted Mathews to all the rights of
ellington and Mathews was entitled to
perfect said entry in Edington's name
or bis sole use and benefit may not
prosecute the appeal of Ed
ngton's name for his own use as Eding-
on's assignee? 1t is evident that if
could, as assignee, perfect
aid entry and acquire title to said land
n Edington's name for his own use that
le could prosecute and defend suits
.gainst said land in the name of Eding-
on. and would be authorized to appeal
n his name Notwithstanding the fact
hat he has no interest in the suit and
lis name only used as nominal party.
I, however, the assignment was Illegal,
md Mathews could not perfect said
ntry IN Edington's name for his own
lse. Ellington having no interest in the
and could not appeal and Mathews
,ould not use Edington's name rs nom
nal party for the purpose of evading
he law and perfecting an illegal entry.
The certificate in this case certifying
hat Ellington was entitled to make mn
additional homestead entry under Sec
ion 2306 of the II. s. was issued by
his office November 4, 1882, under cir
,ular of May II, 1877, in which is requir-
ID that certain papers should be presen-
ed with the application for additional
entry and among others "a detailed
under oath, must be fled by
he party in interest, setting forth the