The herald., 1893-06-20
LILIENTHAL OWNS BARSTOV,
Judge Ross Decides a Case
Against the SO. Cal. Ry.
Two Other Decisions Rendered in the
Federal Courts.
The Twenty Acres on Which Bsrstow is
Situated tho Basis Of Suit = A
Large Draft In Issue
A Bank CAsc.

JuuRo fNOEH IA WV OhApSO
States circuit court handed down an
opinion in the case OF Jesse W. Lilien-
thai vs. the Southern California Railway
company ordering judgment for the
plaintiff.
The action was upon 20-acre tract OF
land selected or attempted to be selected
by the defendant company, and is that
upon which the town Of Barstowis built.
man named Bugbee, predecessor in
interest to the plaintiff, settled upon a
fractional part of the section which con-
tanned 51.55 acres and embracing the
20.acre tract in controversy in July, 1885,
and September IL, 1885, filed his declar-
atory statement In the local land Office
and paid the fee for filing. He after
wards made final proof and payment and
received a certificate OF purchase there
for. This was. followed by q patent
which was issued March 6, 1890, and the
plaintiff derived title from him through
various conveyances.
Prior to Bugbee's settlement the
California Southern Railroad company
filed with the register of the land office
map OF the station grounds at Water
cate of the president and affidavit OF
the chief engineer of the company.
Subsequently September 30, 1885, a map
showing a portion OF the located line of
the California Railway company at
Waterman Junction was filed in the
office of the register and receiver at Los
Angeles, which received the approval of
the interior department December 81,
1885. The same day the acting eecre-
tary of the interior approved the map.
The court after discussing the ques-
ton at considerable length decided that
by the terms OF the land grant OF the
railway company no right to ground Tor
station purposes attaches until the right
OF way is secured by compliance on
the part OF the railway company with
the provisions of the act of congress.
So far as the evidence showed, the
only map then filed by the railway COM
peny when the land in question was
located was the one filed September 30,
1885. But before it met with the APP
prevail OF the interior department, and
prior to the time it was filed with the
register of the land Office, Bugbee set
tied upon the fractional part OF section
is, including the 20 acresin dispute, and
had filed his declaratory statement
therefor.
The trouble with the railway company,
the court says, was that it did not fol-
low the law, the provisions OF which
were very plain. The first thing it did
was to file with the register map Of the
station grounds desired, before it had
secured the right of way for its road.
Msniiestly, befJre any right could
arise out of such q grant the right of way
should be secured, which could be done
by compliance with the provisions of
tho law comforting it. AS the right OF
way had not been secured at the time
the map was filed, such filing initiated
no right to the ground. Judgment is
therefore ordered for the plaintiff"
LARGE DRAFT IN QUESTION.
Judge e. M. Ross, in the United States
circuit courts yesterday fled an opinion
in the case of P, Flanagan and j. w.
Bennett, BANKERS of Marshfeld, Ore., vs.
The California National bank OF San
Diego, y suit to recover the amount of q
$4,000 draft drawn by o Mr.. Baines on
the defendant, Graham. By their COM
plant the PLAINTIFF seek to charge the
defendant, the California bank, now ir
the hands of receiver, with the pay
HeHo Vi VIC uThlJI anu QSuuTEdT lieu
by the receiver, on behalf OF the bank,
raised the question of the latter'H liabil-
ity. The promise counted on ia this
case was the promise OF Cashier O'Brien
of the defendant bank to pay Baines'
draft on Graham, who YVES customer OF
the bank and an anticipated depositor,
and the court ssys that the question for
decision is whether such promise OF
the cashier of national bank ID bind.
ing upon the bank. After quoting nu-
merous authorities the court sustains
the demurrer.
! A BANK CASE,
Judge Ross also gives decision, il
accordance with an opinion filed, in the
case of Eli II. Murray, receiver OF TIT
California Savinga bank, We. Frederick
N. Pauley, receiver OF the California
National bank of San Diego. 1t was e
suit by the receiver of the insolvent
California Savings bank against the re
ceiver of the insolvent California Ma
tional bank, based upon certificate o