The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-01-06
MILL COMPANY LOSES.
Important Decision Under the
Homestead Law.
BIG DAMAGE SUIT ON TRIAL.
Passenger Wants $4,000 for Failing
From Anacortes wharf-Identify-
ing Picked Chicken.

Judge VI the uilcu states
court. handed down decision yesterday
afternoon in the case of the Puget Mill Com
psny VS.. Thomas II. Brown, J. II. Twins
ana G. B. McFadden. The suit was tried
before him about month ago, and the de-
esion sufficiently indicates the facts.
Judge Hanford says. in substance:
This suit was brought by the Puget Mill
Company to determine conflicting claims
to certain lands. of which the defendant,
Brown. holds the legal title under United
States patent.
The plaintiffs claim of title is based
upon a cash entry made at the Olympia
land office on February 10. 1885, pursuant
TO an act OF congress approved June 5,
1850, as follows:
That persons who have heretofore under any
Of the homestead laws entered land properly
subject to such entry, or persons to whom the
righI OF those having 30 entered for homesteads
may have been attempted to be transferred by
bona noe instruments in writing, may cutitle
themselves to said lands by paying the govern
ment price therefor, and in case less than
N25 per acre, and the amount heretofore paid
the government upon said lands shall be taken
% part payment of said price: prorided. this
snail in no wise interfere with the rights or
claims OF others who may have subsequently
entered such lands under the homestesd laws.
1t is therefore necessary to consider
what rights the complainant has sought
TO acquire to the land by an entry under
the homestead laws. 1t appears that an
entry OF the tract was made in the name OF
Susan King, claiming TO be a soldiers
widow, at the Olympia land Office in Jan.
uary, 1876 as a soldiers additional home
stead under sections 1904 and 1906,
United States Revised Statutes. The prac-
tice in the land offices of the United States
during and prior to the year 1876 permit
ted parties to select additional lands in
any part OF the country. and without ap-
pearing IN person at the land office TO make
their entries. That is TO say. parties were
permitted to appear by authorized attor-
neys ana flie tn cir applications and affida-
Wits and proofs required. Taking sdvant-
tage of this liberal mode of making addi-
tional entries under this law, attempted
transfers OF soldiers additional homestead
rights became common. although such
rights are not by the laws made assign
able.
The plaintiff bargained with some per-
son not named. who held the papers ana
claimed to be acting for Susan King, ito
purchase the same and the right Of the
said Susan King hereunder and pay
therefor upon the entry of said land
and the execution of the deed
to plaintiff therefor the sum OF
800" In June, 1916. paper purporting
to be deed conveying said tract from
Susan King to the plaintiff was executed
and delivered by w. d. Scott, the attor-
ney in fact named in the power of attor-
ney. 1t is now claimed by the plaintiff
that an attempt was made bona fide by
this i'm AZ in -it tn,
rights of Susan King, who made an origi-
nal entry fo- a homestead OF a tract less
than 160 acres in aud to the land in con-
troversy under the entry made at Olympia
in January, 1876.
On January Is, 1885. the commissioner
OF the land office ascertained that the hus-
band of Susan King. in whose name the
additional homestead entry was filed. had
not served in the United States army dur
Ing the war. The entry was accordingly
ordered to be cancelled, and sixty DAYS
was given TO the parties in which to con-
test the decision or to apply to purchase
the land under the act OF June l5 1880.
The plaintiff accordingly made applica-
ton under this act, and bought the land
from the government.
More than two years afterward the sue
cessor in office OF that commissioner of
the general land Office made an order can
ceiling the entry, and alleging as the
reason for making the order that the entry
was fraudulent or Illegal" From this
order an appeal was taken TO the secretary
OF the interior. and upon consideration
thereof w. l.. Muldrow. acting secretary
OF the interior. on September s. 1888. m ade
an order and decision affirming the
order of the commissioner cancelling
The entry. This order and de-
clsion of the acting secretary assumed that
the cash entry made by the complainant
was fraudulent and invalid because the
prior additional entry of the land was
based upon fraud and perjury.
The defendant. Brown. flied declara-
tory statement in 1890. and a patent was
Issued to him in February. lk92 Judge
Haniord concludes as follows:
H. IN the determination of the issues between
the parties Row contending FOR the land, the
scope Of the inquiry Is SO limited that the court
can only review The decision OF the acting seere-
isrY in the lieht OF the facts appearing hv the
record OF tue case ia tho general land office.
then the plaintiff ought to prevail But there IS
evidence before the court not found in
TIE general land Office to be considered.
and the conscience % the chancellor
must be satisfied that the complain
clpss OF equity. before the court can. in the
exercise OF the extraordinary powers OF q court
oiequ!ty, decree a transfer OF the title from the
celandani in whom il 10 now vested 10 Il
Now by the agreed ststomeu. OF facts before
ne 1t appears that The complainant did not deal
directly with susan King, and giving tn its
ofeers and agents credit for tho ssvacity
and prudence ol business men OF ordinary
intelligence, there appears to be no
theofy consistent with the facts which can
iesd 70 = conclusion that there was any bona
nae s'temp! 20 transfer any right TO the land
Naieh the parties could reasonably have Gun.
posed to hsye been acquired ty the additional
h"mestesd entry. An attempt TO convey tit.e
can NOT 10 bona Gae on tie part OF the veudee
tc'ess IN masing the purchase he acts with
reasonable prudence ana under sn honest belief
taHi Inc vendor has The right to convey the utle
to him
ny conclusions are that the attempted trans
I'f OF rights acquired under the homestead laws
" tne complainant was not bona ade; that the
ca, entry was therefore not authorized by the
se' o. jane Is. lsSo; and that no rights adverse
"tne government ean Re acquired by al entry
mex authorized by law even though sanctioned
70 s1Vanca by & commissioner az the general
tAAd once. TIE defendants are eutitle. 70 have