St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-06-29
JOY FOR JAMESON.
He Wins Out His Mining
Lease Suit With Gen.
Baker.
The Supreme Court Holds
That Selection Must Not
Precede.
Work on the New Govern
ment Building Given to
Home Labor.
The Gas Light Company
Stands Pat on the Rice
Street Mains.

effect. that their right to- such leases
was superior to that OF the defendant;
that they are in equity entitled to the
same: that the defendant be adjudged
to hold the leases in trust for the
plaintiffs; that transfer of the same to
plaintiffs be adjudged; or. alternatively,
that the leases be cancelled. and that
the right of the parties to acquire leases
be determined by comparative bidding
therefor
The lands in controversy are part of
the indemnity school lands granted by
the United States in lieu of deficiencies
in the school land sections 16 and
IS. 1t is claimed that the state
selected these lands and filed list
thereof in the United States land office
i'll January, 1888, but it appears from the
complaint that not until March, 1891,
was this selection approved and certi-
fled by the secretary Of the interior.
This certified list of lands was trans.
mitted from the general land office to
the governor of the state in April, 1891.
1t was received by the governor as early
as April 81. and on the oath it was de-
livered to the commissioner Of the land
office. 1t is held that only under the
act of 1889 can any rights have been
acquired i'll these lands, and as they did
not belong to the state when the plain
tiffs filed their applications, the plain
titfs acquired no rights.
The opinion of the court is very
volumlnous and exhaustive, and Justice
Dickinson in his syllabus affirming the
order OF the court below recites.
Inc state by merely selecting lands
of the United States, to supply de-
ficiencies of school lands arising from
presumption, does not acquire title to
such lands. Not, at least, until such Sc
lection is approved by the secretary OF
the interior, and perhaps not until the
lands are certified to the state does the
latter acquire title.
Chapter %, laws 1889, authorizing
leases of mineral lands by the state, is
only to lands belonging to
the state" 1t is not applicable to lands
which have been merely selected by the
state. Hence applications for leases
filed with the stale land commissioner.
prior to the approval Of the selection,
are premature and of no legal effect,
even though recognized as yslid by the
commissioner.
But it, after the state acquires such
lands. the applicant directs the atten-
ton OF the commissioner to the prema-
ture application on file, and the officer
then recognizes it as valid application.
it then becomes such.
Priority of application gives no supe-
rlor right as between several applicants.
But an authorized preference by the
land commissioner of one of two appli-
cants the granting Of a lease, with
out affordlng opportunity for competi-
tive bidding by them, does not Justify
an adjudication charging the applicant
to whom the lease is granted as a
trustee OF the same for the disappointed
applicant.
Nor can such lease ae set aside at the
suit Of the disappointed applicant, the
state not being party to the action.
III the commissioner should be guilty
OF offlclal misconduct by being a party
IN interest in the favored application,
so as to avoid the application. lease
granted thereon might be adjudged to
pc held in trust for the other applicant.
Complaint considered as not showing
that the commissioner was Interested
III the application filed by the defend
ant.
Albert Dallemand ct al, co-partners as Dial
lemand d. Co., respondents VS.. Peter p
SWensen, appellant. Order and judgment
allrmeu. DICKINSON, j.
. An assignment in error, calling in
question the correctness of the findings
OF the court, is of no avail when it spe-
cites no particular findings, but is APP
plicable alike to several.
Certain objectional evidence consid-
cred as harmless because it could not
have influenced the court in its findings
OF fact.
i, Proof of disbursements held sufficient
for taxation of costs.
State of Minnesota eX REL. Duluth Belt Line
Il ,ilway Company, relator VS.. District
Court Eleventh Judicial District County
: OF st. Louis, respondent Judgment re-
versed. DICKINSON. j.
A railroad company organized for
and doing the business of an ordinary
railroad, transporting passengers and
freight, held subject to taxation only in
accordance with CHI. 2, General Laws
1887; that is, by the rule of percentage
oilHits gross earnings. although the road
IS only three miles in extent, the cars
being operated by steam locomotive
over two miles of the road and by cable
up a, steep ascent or one mile.
as ]. E. & g. w. Cushing, appellants, VS.
John Cable ct H., defendants: Edwin
Cooley, respondent. Affirmed.
DICKINSON. j..
Upon letting for hire Of personal
property by the plaintiff for a definite
term, for the use of the bailees, the de-
PENDANT as a guarantOr for the bailees
became responsible for the return of the
property. The fact that after the ex-
piration of the term the plaintiff con-
scented TO the retention of the property
by the bailees exOnerateS the guarantOr
from. libility for failure to return it.
A fact found by the court, although
expressed as conclusion of law, will
be treated as finding OF fact.
Annie B. Scofield. appellant, VS.. Jennie E.
Quinn, respondent Judgment reversed
DICKINSON, j.
In an action under the statute to de-
terIniue adverse claims to real estate.
the defendant asserted title by a con-
yeyance from the plaintiff to her (plaint-
ifs mother, and by devise from the
latter to the defendant. In reply the
plaintiff alleged that simultaneously
with the delivery of the deed (quit-
claim to her mother the latter executed
and delivered to her a written instru-
ment, not under seal (set forth in fuln,
referring to the deed. and declaring the
intention of the parties to be that the
grantee should hold only life estate;
it being pleaded also that this was in
accordance with the agreement OF the
parties, and that the instruments were
part of the same transaction, and were
intended to carry into effect the agree
ment aud purpose to convey life
estate. The Conveyance was made upon
considerations of filial duty.
Held, that the two instruments should
be read together to ascertain the inten-
ton of the parties. 1t being apparent
that the parties Intended the unsealed
writing to qualify the deed referred to
therein. equity will afford relief and
carry that intention into effect, notwitll.