The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1891-05-10
THE CANNON ADDITION.
Northern Pacific Railroad Company
Brings Suit to Eject Holders
OF Lots.
A New Move to Remove tho CLOUD
From It's Legal
Title.
Leslie Goes to Deer Lodge for Thirteen
Months-Mr Woodbridge Says She
Lost Her Tenants.

The Northern Pacific Railroad company
has commenced Il new line of action
against G. W.. Cannon in it's fight for 100
acres on the east side, known as the G.. W.
Cannon addition TO Helena. The value
placed on the ground il about $4,000.
There are about a dozen people residing in
the addition, some of whom have warranty
deeds from Mr.. Cannon for their lots. His
title to the land 10 through a United States
mineral patent. Early in the month in a
suit brought by the company against Can
non in the United States circuit court to
cancel his patent a decision adverse to the
railroad company was rendered on de1nnr-
rer. According to that ruling the company
was powerless until it mould first obtain
possessions of the-iand in dispate. This, it
appears, has not been obtained. SO yester-
day suits in ejectment were filed in tho
district court of this county against the
persons now living on tho ground.
If by this means the company obtains
possession it will be in position to main
tain it's suit in the circuit court against
Cannon's patent. which it alleges is a oloud
on its title TO the land. In the suit brought
in the latter court it is commended by the
company that the land was embraced in its
grant from congress of every alternate sec
ton on each side of the line of its road for
twenty miles. 1t was in this case that
Judge Knowles said: 1.-THE reason assigned
for asking to have the patent set aside is
that it prevents the plaintiff from receiving
a patent for the premises from the United
States. This may be an excuse for not
issuing the patent to plaintiff, but not a
legal one, if it is entitled to a patent. What
would be the effect of %annuling the patent
to Mr.. Cannon? The decree would affect
only the parties to this action, and as far as
the Unite States is concerned, which is not
a party herein, and said defendants are
concerned, the patent would still exist. |
cGnno view this case i'll any other light
than an action to determine the adverse
title to Il tract OF land
The law regarding the question of pos
session was also considered: SIT is said
that to within a period of five years the
premises were vacant, u~noccupled, unfenced
and unimproved, and not used for any pur-
pose. Thu inference is that the premises
were at tho commencement of this suit oc-
cupiea bv some one, and it is not alleged
that the plaintiff is that person. The al
legation WAS probably made with the view
of showing that the statute of limitation
had not run against this action. The gen.
eral rule is that those VINO have a legal title
and are out of possession cannot maintain
an action to remove q cloud upon their title.
Possession must first be obtained in IN &C
ton at law. If the statute law of tho state
gave the right to maintain an action where
the plaintiff owns a legal title and is not in
possession, the same right might be en-
forced In Il federal court, and where a new
equity is given by a statute, that equity
NAV be enforced in a court of the United