The L'Anse sentinel. (L'Anse, L.S., Mich.) 18??-current, 1891-09-05
(Contia,led from .tlrst paae.l


allowed OF record and against filings in
exceptional cases, where the equities or
nature OF the conflicting claims sesm
ed to demand an early adjudication OF
the rights OF the respective parties in
interest, but so far M l am able to
ascertain, il has never been the policy
of this ofiie or OF the department to
allow a contest to DO initiated against
o mere application to make entry be-
fore such entry had been allowed of
record and in the absence Of any adj
verse claim to the land on the part Of
the party seeking to contest. The only
case which IL could be contened in any
manner conflicts with this view il
Saben VS.. Amundson 60 l.. d., 578)
cited counsel for Lee, wherein the hon
orable assistant secretary, after passing
upon the rights of the respective par
ties thereto, said that "if he. (Saben) file
an affidavit OF contest, pending the dis
position of the case bstw. en- Am ,ndson
(who had pending application for the
land) and the railway company, it
would be received and heldwith out fur
ther action until the final adjudication
OF said case" think it may be f'irIy
said that the statement or direction
contained in the above decision was
purely 0biter dict,tn. Moreover, in
the clse cited, Saben was claimant
for portion OF the land involved and ut
one time had an entry OF ecord there
for, while i'm the case under consider
alton Lee has no interest whatever in
the land in controversy, nor could he
acquire any interest til, rein under the
law in virtue Of tho sncc, sfnl deter
minntion OF contest againstSa mere
application to eater sad land.
/ am therefore, of the opinion that
Lees application to contest was pre-
mature, and that the same was properly
rejected Q,osenberg w. Hale's heirs, o
L. D., 16l) although / nm unable to
saw, NJ will presently he seen, that the
reasons for such rejection heretofore
given by the local officers and by this
Office WI re we'll founded.
The second question raised by the
motion is rs to the priority OF right be-
tween Arendt and Cameron. Counsel
Tor Arendt insists First, that the
withdrawal of the land in question for
railroad purposes was unauthorized by
open to entry ut the date of Arendts
application in 1884; second that in
the event the land was properly with
drawn from entry at date of said appli-
cation. yet upon revocation Of such with
drawal, Arendt's rights attached. under
his application and ho should have
been allowed to make entry.
Without entering into any discuss
ion of the act of congress nndrr which
the lands in question were withdrawn,
It IL sufficient to say that in the case of
Julius A. Barnes (6 l.. d., 522) said
withdrawal was held to have duly re-
served the land from entry during the
existence of the withdrawal order
although such withdrawal may not
have been contemplated by the grant
ing act. The land in controversy,
therefore, was not open to entry at
date of Arendt's application in 1884,
but he having appealed from the re-
lection of his application and the same
having been pending ut the date of the
restoration of the land to the public
domain, whether or not his rights I'M
der said application should be held to
have attached to the exclusi IN OF
Cameron, presents question OF some
difficulty.
It must be conceded that, although
Arendt could acquire no right by virtue
Of his application during the existence
of the railroad withdrawal. as against
the railroad company or the govern
ment, yet, under line of we'll esta-
blished cases, following the doctrines
laid down in Geer vs.. Harrington, "a l..
D., 410) and Wiley VS.. Raymond. Go l..
D., 24G) priority OF right between him
and subsequent claimant may proper
ly lie considered, and were it not for
the fact that the order Of revocation
mentioned opered the land
to settlement on August 10, 1887. but
it from entry until October 10
1887, Arendt would clearly have had
prior right to the land in question by
reason Of his prior application. But it
is contended by counsel for Cameron
that under the direction contained in
the secretary's order OF revocation,
Arendt's rights under his application
could not attach until October 10, 1887,
and that in the meantime to-wit,
on or about Sept. l, 1887, Cameron had
made lawful settlement upon the land |
and thereby acquired claim prior and
to that of Arendt, and that tho |
laid down in the above case is
not applicable to the case ut bar. j
confe-s than mono Of tho cases cited
by counsel for either party in this re-
gard are exactly in point. nor haved
been able, upon examination, to find IN
case ON all fours with the
one under consideration.
The above mentioned order OF August
Is, 1887, revoking the withdrawal for
purposes % l.. d., Oh provided
that the lands SHOULD he restored to
the public domain and opened to settle
ment under the general land law" and
The further direction contained in said
ord and upon which counsel for Cam.
eron rely, stated that, rs against actual
thereafter made, the orders
Of withdrawal should no longer DO an
obstacle, and that filings and enteries
would not be received until after thirty
days public advertisement.
In ordinary cases, an application to
enter is held to be cquivnient to actual
entry 30 far as the rights Of the appli-
can't are concerned, and such applicant
n ., ~ ,-<.<,,,sxcJ n rcuisla or the land