The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1893-11-25
Rulings From Washington Involv-
Ing Valuable Real Estate Near
Great Falls.
In Henry " Stanton the soors-
tary Decides In Favor Of
the Plaintiff
n Mitchell W KonamsSs the Looa, Ohiss
Reversed and h Victory IL With
the Defendant

decisions involving valuable land In tbs
vicinity Of Great Falls. The Arst 10 fro m
the secretary OF the interior in tho case OF
Chss. 3. Henry ". John ". Stanton. IN.
volving the southeast quarter Of section
rs. township q, north Of range 8 sast. The
history Of the case shows that = person
named Hughes made 1 desert land entry OF
the whole section, including tho land In
dispute, In September. 1886. In July. 1881.
Lux initiated = contest against ths entry OF
Hoshss. and applied to sntsr the southwest
quarter OF the section. In November. 1887,
sarah A. MoBrins applied 10 contest the on.
Try OF Hughes and TO hle = declara-
tory statement for the pfe-emption Of the
20 n thereof. In April, 1883. Henry IN.
iNiassd a contest against lSstd desert lapd
entry. and applied to enter the - n theieof.
Hughes %relinou,shed his right to the u n
and 10 the svk' Of ths section embodied 10
his desert land entry. and Lux Withdrew
his contest, waving all preference right Of
entry. Al the same time W. +. d mn made
timber culture entry 10. the " Il Of tbs NV
u and tho v II Of the sw n Of said section.
William W. Stanton nlsd presumption de-
~claratory ssstensnt for the Q n OF the NV
u, and George H. Stanton filed p'e-smp-
ton declaratory statement for tho ne a.
Al this time, II will be remembered. that
Lux was 0IlmluuteO 1EOm tuc stik0sAoh'
and John W. Stanton had not yet mp
In November, 1889. Henry initiated a plo.
ceedinQ before the local %oflicers. making
MoBrins. Dsan. and tho swo STATIONS
OWN. w. md George H.. parties defend
MoBrinS7s; Shat he papers had boon fraud
ulently , laced on 6le; ana praying that the
vafions filings and entries Of the defendants
b canoeled. and shat hs BE- allowed to
select any 4 ortion Of said section he choss
for entry. The petition OF Henry wa, de-
MED 81 tho local officers end he 40. called
TO she commissions OF the general land
After said appeal. and before the decision
was made by tho commissioners Hughes
embraced in bis entry. MoBrine rein
pushed ssr claim. and Joan "; ssanton
made homestead entry 4.028. Whsreup IL
Henry hled a supplementary pape.. asking
that Stnnton'A home stead entry 30 can
celled, and that h. be eAowed prefe'snoe
right of entry, This WAS 70 warded to the
com missioner, without notion, by the local
officers.
The d~ecision Of the commissions upon
the appeal Of Henry, rendered Sept. T. 1883.
directed that a hea ing be had before the
LEGAL offlo+rs between McBrine and Henry.
10 dete. mine which had tho prior right OF
contest. In the departmental decision Of
April 20. 1891, the same direction ts given.
and all parties defendant. except Aobrine'
are dismissed from tbs case. Henry was
allowed sixty days IN wnloa 10
tics to MeBrins and y: ". stanton.
Henry did not comply with this direction:
and for that reason Stanton CONTENDS th"s
the case is closed a. to him.
Now, it will be remembered that Stanton
was not a party TO the proceedings when
Henry took an appeal 10 commissioner OF
the general land office. Homestead entry
No. 1923 was not then in existence.
Whom tho departmental decision was
made, McBrins had ceased to DO a party BY
REIMBURSEMENT. and wac. Of course. NO
longer in the way of Henry. Beaides. that
decision was made in determining tire rights
of plaintiff under his contest with Hughes
The ease now under consideration IL q pro-
cssding to determine his rights under his
contest against tho homessc"a sn,fy o,
being entirely different. He Is not es!opped
by his failure to procure the hearing d.
Iected as aforesnid.' This distosss Of
ground number one.
Defendant made his homestead entry
Nov. 20. 1883. Plaintiff hled ahidavit of
contest Jan. %, 1889. and In March. the: O.
after, the testimony in the case was taken
bslors an ofhcer designated for that pur-'
pose. The hhal healinR thereof was post
poned until the latter part OF the yenr 1891.
On July 10. 1884, it was stlps ated b.
"G0u uh~ WV
that the above mentionea testimony should
take the place Of the hearing. which was
dirscted between the parties hereto ny de-
Inrtmentsl decision Of Ap II 70. 1891. and
that ths issue herein shall be deemed and
consider red to be the same as il dofned and
directed In said departmental decision. and
none Other"
The issue above specified WIS one be.
tween Chas, 6. Henry and Sarah 4. Nc
Brine. and was directed In order to give the
former an opportunity to establish AIS 2 J.
ority of contest a. against the latter. Inc
agreement refer cd to was nm arrangement
made to be observed In the approaching
homestead contest between the parties 10
this case. in which tue issue 10 that OF r Tor
ssttis The contention of defendant
is that the terms OF said stipulation should
have bsen enforced In tho contest trial
against his homestead, and that piaintin
should have been limited to the establish
ment Of his priority uf'contest AZ against a
person who WINS then a stranger TO the case.
That portion of tho stipulation was with
out conside alton and was obviously en-
to- cd into by inndvertence. Its enforce
ment would have been An a~bsurdisy.
The controlling question In the case was
,riority of settlement, and the commits
sionsr OF the general land office, in q de-
oision rendered Sept. s. 1891, held that
Henry had mRdo the FIST settlement. and
was entitled to entry. Stanton denied
that the evidence showed such a state OF
facts, first. because Henry had failed TO
comply with certain provis!ons OF depart
mental decision rendered April 80, 1891,
and, second. because of a certain stipuls-
tion and agreement snte cd into between
secretary confirms tho decision of the COM
missioner in Henry's favor.
MITCHELL vs.. KOM M II