The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-04-28
FAMOUS LAND CASE.
Suit for a Portion of the Hill
Tract Dismissed.
ANCIENT HISTORY RECALLED.
Ane Oity Sues for Delinquent Grade
taxes = Owners of Fidalgo City
Sued-Tne Blotter.

Inc complaint of Henry s. Alger aginast
Alce ). Hill, executrix of the estate of W.
Y. Hill, involving the title to about SIS. 900
worth OF property in the famous Hill
tract" was dismissed by Judge Lichten-
berg In the superior court yesterday. The
case was partially heard once before, but
never on its merits. On the former trial
the defendants demurrer to the plaintiff s
complaint was sustained. The supreme
court, however, reversed the decision of
the lower court. and remanded the case for
another trial. The plaintiff is not content
with the second decision, and will appeal
the case to the supreme court.
The land involved in the case is por-
ton of that parcel of the old Maynard do
nation land claim which was declared
void by reason of Maynard's marital
troubles and the fact that Mrs. Maynard
never actually settled on the land. In 1874
Fred A. Minnick filed presumption claim
on lots 10 and IL in section 4, township "a,
range east, comprising about thirty-fiye
acres. In May, 1875. he proved up, Sc
cured his receipt for moneys paid and OBJ
tanned patent certificate from the regis
ter of the land office, then located at
Olympia. Shortly thereafter he sold his
rights to Henry s. Alger for $500, and
at that time he considered that sum a
good price for this tract of heavy timbered
land. In 1876 the city of Seattle laid claim
to the land, contending that it was en-
braced within the boundaries of the city
as incorporated under the territorial act of
December 2, 1862
The case came before the United States
land commissioner and he decided that
neither the city nor Minnick was entitled
to the land, for, though Minnick had sold
to Alger, the suit was defended in the for
mer's name. 1t was decided that the city
was not entitled to the land, as it had not
accepted it nor used it for municipal pur-
poses, and that Minnick was not entitled
to it, because he had filed on land en-
braced within the corporate limits of the
city. From the land commissioner the
case was appealed to the secretary of the
interior. and he affirmed the decision. On
March 3, 1877, congress passed an act to
cure imperfections in such entries, but
Minnick's was still held defective because
the secretary held that, as city marshal of
the city of Seattle. he must have known of
the boundaries of the city, and the act could
not benefit him.
1t is alleged that in 1880 w. G. Hill, who
was in Washington City, got knowledge
Of the status of the land, and, receiving a
lot of what was known as Porter6eld
scrip, filed on it. The Porterfield scrip
was an indemnity scrip granted by act of
congress for forfeiture of certain Mexican
grants, and with 1t the owner was per-
mitted to file on any unoccupied land of
the public domain of the United States.
Hill, in 1882, secured patents for about 320
acres, more or less, in which. Minnick or
Ayers thirty-five acres was embraced.
About 1887 Alger, as the grantee of Min
nick, brought his action, claiming to be
the rightful owner of the land in question.
Alger contended that by virtue
of the entry of Minnick and
the act of congress of 1877, the
full equitable title was confirmed in Min
nick and passed to him by the warranty
deeds from Minnick to him. His prayer
was that the court decree that Hill and
his successors hold the land in trust for
the plaintiff.
Judge Lichtenberg held yesterday that
the secretary of the interior had decided
as question of fact that Minnick knew
that he was filing on land within the city
limits, and that the superior court could
not go behind that decision. He, there
fore. dismissed the case. Hughes. Hast
ings & Stedman appeared for the plaintiff
and Junius Rochester for the defendant.