The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-08-03

the date OF Lentzy's application and subject
thereto
II is quite evident that neither Lentzy's nor
Fisher appeals Can be sustained Hanscon 3
contest was frs. in time, and the local officer
rightly ruled that Fishers contest must De post
poned until the final disposition OF Hanscons
prior contest.
Schneider W. Bradley. ] l. D.. 1872
Wheelan VS.. Taylor, ? l. D.. 20.
Ferrier vs.. Wilcox ct al. l. D.. 40
Hoode VS.. Ssndo et al, 5 L. D., 40
Wade vs. Sweeney, l. D., 81
Smith vs. Brown ct a.. 7 l. D., Az
Coniey rs. Prize, 9 l. d.. 49l
Cape.li Va Walsh. Il L d. SSi
siues entry until duly Cancelled segregated
said land, and there was no error il rejecting
Lentz's said application TO homestead said tract.
witherspoon va Duncan. Wall, 2lo-2le.
Hastings d Dakota Railroad Company VS..
Whitney, Isl Z. s, 357.
sturr VS.. Beck, lss c. 3. 54i-5.2
Swims VS.. Ward, I3 l. D., 6ss.
James A. Forward. S L D., 523.
Allen vs. CurtiHs, l. d., "a.
Sehrotosrger rs. Arnold. 6 l. d., 42a
Milton Townsite We Gam, l. D., So
Whitney vs. Maxwell. > l. d.. IS
Attorney General McVeigh's opinion, L
D.. 81
So long as the homestead entry remains of rec
ord it is subject TO contest, even though the
time for making final proof has expired
Klncaid vs. Jefferson, L D., l36
Greer vs. Brown, ) I. D., %.
Rathbone vs. Warren 10 L D., 1I1-ll3
Matthews vs Barbaronic, Il l. D., 2s5
Il is expressly we'll settled that the heirs OF a
deceased entryuan are necessary parties, and
should be duly served with notice OF the con-
test
Dixon VS.. Bell, Il I. D. So
Driscoil VS. Johnson, ii !. D., e1-
The record shows that said contestant
moved the local Offices 10 grant continuance
in order that some of the heirs whose names
were then known TO her could BE- duly served
with notice and made parties to the contest.
This motion. In my judgment, should have
been allowed Ii it be true that Sines ii his
lifetime had earned q patent for said land then
the entry could not be successfully contested.
Ii is true that in his homestead affidavit sines
states that his settlement commenced April 5,
les2, but the fact would not stop him upon sp-
plication 10 make final proof from showing that
he had in fact lived on said laud prior thereto
and claimed the same under the settlement
laws OF the United States. But the pre-emp-
ton declaratory statement is not conclusive as
to settlement and residence upon said tract as
required By law. and the question of TACT
should be determined at q hearing between the
parties
The case is accordingly remanded with direc-
tions that you order further hearing between
Hanscom and said heirs. to determine whether
said Sines had failed to comply with the re-
quirements OF law as 10 settlement and resi-
dence in good faith prior 10 his death for So fl
Gent time 10 entitle him 10 a patent, and each
party will be allowed TO submit any eompeten,
evidence tending to show their interest in the
premises. Fishers contest affidavit will re-
main in the local Office to await the result OF
said hearing. and the homestead application OF
Lsn5zy will stand rejected.
The papers in the case are herewith returned.