Los Angeles herald., 1892-02-10
LIEU LAND LAW.
An Important Decision by
Judge Ross.
The Southern Pacific Company
VS.. Stanley.
A Texas Pacific Railroad Land Grant
Case.
A Case in which the Railroads Patent
Is Questioned - Points in
Demurrer Which Are
Settled.

culU court idlu uOWn some important
propositions regarding land law in his
decision overruling the demurrer in the
case of the Southern Pacific Railroad
company against Stanley ct al. By the
bill fled in this case the complainant
seeks to have its alleged title to the land
in controversy established, and to OBJ.
tain decree that the patent under
which the defendants assert title to the
premises is null and void, and enioininp
defendants from claiming title thereto
Hereunder. The demurrer raises num-
ber of objections to the bill.
The title claimed by the complainant
comes from the act of congress of March
Sd, 1871. entitled, An Act to Incorporate
the Texas Pacific Railroad Company,
and to Aid in the Construction OF Its
Road and for Other Purposes. The bill
shows the line of road thereby autho-
rized to be located and built was To-
Gated and built by the complainant, and
it thereby earned the granted lands. 1t
alleges that on April 3, 1871, a map
showing the definite location of the
road was filed in the Office of the secre-
tary of the interior and in that of the
commissioner of the general land office !;
that the lands in controversy are within
twenty miles of the line of the road as
so definitely located and aft
erwards constructed; that at the
time of the definite location
of the route they had not been granted,
sold, reserved, occupied by homestead
settlers, pre-empted, or otherwise dis
posed OF for any purpose whatever, and
that the United States had full title
thereto, on that day; that subsequent
to the said Sd day of April, 1871, one J.
@. A. Stanley ''made location upon
said land, as lieu land, in lieu of a por-
ton of a sixteenth section of school
land lost to the state of California under
the grant of congress to it of March Sd,
1861" that thereafter the land was
awarded to Stanley by the state of Cali
fornia, and that on July "a, 1874, the
state issued to him its patent therefor,
under which the defendants assert title
to the premises.
After reviewing number of objec-
tions to the bill, Judge Ross says: The
land in question then being, according
to the allegations of the bill, vacant, un-
appropriated public land of the United
States became by virtue of the congress
sional grant the property OF the COM
plainant. True, the dry legal title re-
manned in the government; and this
fact is the ground for another objection
to the bill. 1t is said that suit to
quiet title can only be maintained upon
the legal title. This, Judge Ross holds,
does not apply in this case, where the
grant is from the government. 1t is also
contended that the bill fails to show
of L. La
The point would be good but for the
statute of California permitting such
actions to be maintained whether the
complainant be in or out of possession.
1t is further urged that the bill does not
show that the claim set up by the de-
PENDANTS casts cloud on the complain
aonts title, and this because it is not
alleged that that the land was ever Sc
lected by the state or listed to it by the
United States. The judge holds that
patent from the state for lands of six
teenth or thirty-sixth section granted
to it by act of congress March 8, 1858.
shows at least prima facie
title to the holder on which he could
recover in ejectment in the absence of
evidence overlooking it. The Judge then
says: The patent would be attended
with the presumption that every step
necessary TO its issuance had been COM
piled with, including the listing of the
land to the state. Unless this is SO it is
difficult to perceive the use of such an
instrument. The existence of such a
patent creates cloud upon the true
title.
''Another objection urged by the de-
PENDANTS to the bill is that it is barred
by lapse of time. 1t is therein alleged
in effect that ever since the grant to
complainant attached to the land
IN question complainant has been
persistentiy and continuously, but
in vain, endeavoring to pro-
cure from the officers of the land depart
ment of the government a patent for
this, among other lands embraced by its
grant. Counsel for defendants contend
that the fact that complainant was DUR
ing all of this time pressing it's demand
for patent from the government does
not excuse it's delay in bringing the
present suit against the defendants,
which was not commenced until Febru-
airy 20, 1890, that complainant had the
same title to the land in question on
April 3, 1871, that it had on February
20, 1890, and that its right to maintain
suit OF this nature, if it ever existed,
accIueu WHeu Luo SuaC6 patent was
issued on the Oath of July, 1874. and
that complainant's long delay in assert
ing it's rights gainstdefendants ought to
bar the suit. 1t is true the right to
maintain the suit would have accrued
to complainant upon the issuance of the
state patent in July, 1874, if the land
had then been claimed by the building
of the road. Otherwise, not. Com
rlainant's title only became perfect by
the compliance on its part with all the
conditions of the grant, and, when that
was done, the title related back to the
date of the grant. 1t does not appear
from the bill that the title of the COM
plainant to the land inquestion thus be-
came perfect prior to January, 1878.
But, independent of this consideration
it seems to me that the reason of the
court for denying the eoundness of a
like position of counsel in the case ol
OF the United States vs. Curtner, de-
cided in this circuit by Mr.. Justice Field
and Judge Sawyer (38 Fed. Rep, ,-D, ap-
plies to the present case. 1t is true the
suit there was brought in the, name o.
the United States but it was brought
IN the interest of the railroad company
to procure f,s.2ree annulling the listing
over to the state of certain lands Sc
lected by the state in lieu of certain six
teenth and thirty.sixth sections. anC