Aberdeen herald. [volume] (Aberdeen, Chehalis County, W.T.) 1886-1917, 1891-05-07
A Decision in Favor of a Timber
Land Entry.

Judge Hanford, of the United States
district court at Tacoma, recently re-
affirmed the we'll established rulings Of
the United States land Office, namely,
that when several transfers Of land have
been made, that the title will not be
affected by the fact that there were
Irregularities in the original entry. The
title of the case at hand was the United
States VS.. John P. Scholl, and the de-
cision of the court was as follows:
"This was suit brought by direction
of the United States to obtain decree
cancelling patent for tract of land
issued in the wear 1887 to the defendant,
John P. Scholl, who made an entry of it
as timber land under the act of June 3,
1878, the entry and proofs being made in
the year 1883.
"The testimony satisfies nee that the
land is not in fact chiefly valuable for
timber, and for that reason not subject
to entry under the provision of the statute
providing for the sale Of timber land, and
if the suit were brought against the
original entryman or patentee of the
government the relief prayed for should
be granted. Several transfers of title,
however, have been made. The present
owners of the land bought it after the
patent had issued. They bought it from
the apparent owners of perfect legal
title, and there would be no equity, it
seems to me, In imposing upon them the
entire loss Of the property and the pur-
chase money which they have paid for it.
The statute under which the entry
was made contains provision that if
false representations are made in acquir
ing title the entryman shall forfeit the
money which he pays, and all his right,
title and interest to the land. 1t also
provides that every conveyance that he
makes OF the land shall be void, except
AS against bona fide purchasers, recogniz-
ing fine principle of equity, that the pur-
chaser Of legal title for a valuable con-
sideration without notice OF any out
standing equitable claims against the
property is entitled to protection to the
extent that equity will not enforce a
merely equitable right against his legal
title. The testimony very fully makes
out the defense as set up here OF a bona
fide purchase by the present owner. 1t
is instituted by the attorney for the
United States against this claim that the
land itself shows that it was not of the
character contemplated in the act of
congress providing for the sale OF timber
land, and that purchaser would be sup
posed to know from the appearance of
the land that the entry was fraudulent,
and that the patent was obtained by
fraud and therefore chargeable with
notice. But l find that the patent which
was issued for this land does not purport
to have been issued under the act of June
3, 1873, and it does not show that the
government was relying upon any repre-
sentation that the land was chiefly valu-
able for timber and unfit for cultivation.
"The patent recites that the land had
been purchased and paid for under the
act OF April "a, 1S20-the general statute
of the United States providing for the
sale OF public land under the direction of
the president, and person who would
examine the patent itself would not be
apprised that the question OF whether the