The Black Hills union. [volume] (Rapid City, Pennington County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1889-1904, 1892-02-12

L
Marty, Fred G WilIor, Patrick Ford, Mary
A Deathe, widow of George Deathe, Mary
Kane, Thomas O'Rourke, VIM. Carr, Sarah
j Donaldson,J j ohm Lehman, Ira s Tillotson,
Frederick Roberts, Eliza Rhoads, John
w Neill, Paul Lariver, David Beauchamp,
Ottmar Wetz, Martin Anderson jerome j
G Crockett, Ed yard j Boyd, VIM. M
Edward r Adams. David 9 Robinson,
Mill, Archibald McNeill, VIM. A McMicl,-
ael. John N NCunningham, Mark Spencer.
Joseph La Near, Fred E Bond, Caroline
uel Coburn, John Kimck, Andrew Jessup,
Charles a Fisk, Joseph McCracken,
Charles M Bourne, Jesse Burner, Samuel
Lowe, John Johnson, Mary NJ. Lamear.
eThe following cash patents have also
been received at the local land Office:
FALL RIVER COUNTY
Edwin p Allen, Harry o Calhoun, Henry
s Snyder, Lacy Barb, Henry d Carsley,
George w Glow, William Whitcomb, Sam
suel Beaver. ..ss
BUTTE COUNTY. '54g
Charles d Haven.
MEADE COUNTY.
William Borsh. Nancy z Stowe. John
Leclair, Climera A Waters for the heirs of
George E Freeman.
PENNINGTON COUNTY.
Marion Arment. Richard Twel, Elmer
Weber, VIM. j Darr, Lucy Mullenger, VIII
lis L Humphrey.
CUSTER COUNTY.
Herman II Beels.
AN IMPORTANT CASE.
Frank S. Bliss yesterday presented a
homestead entry on 100 acres of land ad-
jacent to the Mallow ranch close to town.
The property lakes in the hill on the
north side of the creek ,cornering close to the
electric light plant and running up to the
brick yard and is the claim which has been
known as the Sweeney, PIunlset s Lynch
stone quarry, from which considerable build
ing stone has been taken within the past
few years. The following minute partic-
ulars of the case were secured from the
local land office records:
Mineral application No. 3J2 was made
on this property October 13 1856, by
Thomas Sweeney, Charles A. Stilson, John
p. Plunkett and Henry Baldwin, as a
stone placer claim. This was consnlnatcu
by mineral entry No. 23l, Marcn 90 1888,
as a granite stone mineral claim. the patent
for which was delivered to D. IL Herman.
February 10 1890: February Sth 1882
Frank S Bliss made application and affi-
davit to enter the same, AS homestead,
which was rejected by the local Office, be-
cause of the existence OF patent. The
land was originally located by Gus Nal
low, who sold QUITO the patentees.
The following syllabus of Il decision ren-
Il
court bears on the case exactly and shows
that unless fraud can be proved, there is
slight hopes for the contestant.
1. A patent for any part OF the public
lands. when issued by the land depart
ment acting within the scope of its
authority, carries with it, when delivered
and accepted by the grantee, tho legal
title to the land, and with it passes all
control of the executive department of the
government over the title.
y. If any lawful reason exists why the
patent should be cancelled OR rescindcd,
the appropriate and only remedy is by
bill in chancerey, in court of competent
jurisdiction, Brought by the government
and there exists no power in the secretary
of the Interior or any other officer of the
government to reconsider the facts of
rescind it, or to issue another for the same
land.
3. But when fraud or mistake Or mis-
construction of the law of the case exists.
the United States, or any contesting claim
ant for the land, may have appropriate re-
lief in court of equity.
Justice Field in the we'll known case Of
Johnson VS.. Tousley makes similar ruling.
Frank Bliss and one or two others claim,
that a recent ruling of the secretary of the
Interior with regard to stone lands. leaves
the road open for the action he has insti-
tuted, but diligent inquiry fails to show o
decision by that functionary that fits here.
There is, however, a ruling in the matter OF
stone claims. on which patents have not
been issued, that might be applied here.
But as patent has issued in this case
it is difficult to res where tho contestant
expects to gain his case.