The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-07-06

- Deeiston OF Judge Hanrord's In Favor
OF First Purchaser

seass H1o1ord yesterday handed down
ms decision in the case Of the stimson
Land Company against Alonzo Raxson.
r., Aionzo kawson. 81. and Howard Z.
nenoeFson-a suit in equity brought for
the purpose Of determining adverse claims
70 the title TO lands conveyed by patents
rom the United States: heard on excep-
nons 10 the defendants answer; sxcep-
tons overruled.
Ine bill OF complaint as amended,
alleges that plaintiff is the owner of the
Ianos described therein. deraigning title
thereto from the government Of the United
States through the presumption entry of
tnsries NJ Park. and thu timberiand entry
OF James ID. Hannegan.
a demurrer to the amended bill o! COM
paint has been considered and oyerruled
and the defendants have answered, deny
ing the equities of the bill. that is TO say,
they deny that the grantors of the COM
piainant ever complied with the laws of
the United States so as TO become entitled
10 the lands In dispute, and deny that by
any fraudulent or unfair means any agent
OF the land department of the United
ctates procured or caused false testimony
TO be taken, whereby the decision OF the
Sand department. as 10 the validity Of the
several entries made "a alleged in the COM
paint, was IA any manner affected. And
as further defense the answer alleges
sinrmativeiy that pre-em ption cash entry
No. 3, 1pT by Charles VI. Park, was made by
him frandulently with intent TO cheat the
government of the United States and not
In good faith 70 appropriate the land TO
bis own use and benefit; that after
the entry in the local land Office,
upon testimony taken before the
register and receiver Of the land Office,
after due notice TO Park and to his yen-
dees. IL was determined by the commIs-
stoner that the entry was frauduiently
made by Park and that upon an appeal
taken from the decision by the plaintiffs
srantors the secretary Of the interior
affirmed the decision, and afterward. pur.
suant to the order and direction of the
commissioner Of the general land Office.
the entry was Cancelled and the land de-
clared 10 be open for entry under the pub
lie land laws of the United States. The
answer also contains similar averments
with reference to the timber land entry
alleged 70 have been made by James D.
flanagan, and IL Is further averred that
after the cancellation of the entries Alonzo
Rawson, IT., took the land as homestead
and acquired perfect right to the land
and patent was Issued 10 him, and after
wards, by warranty deed, Alonzo Rawson,
ir., sold the land to defendant Howard r.
Henderson, who is a bona tide purchaser.
Counsel for the complainant contends
that Notwithstanding the denials aud
syerments Of this answer the equities of
the bill are admitted and that decree
should be rendered I'm the COMPLIMENTS
favor, declaring the complainant TO be the
true equitable owner of the land by reason
OF the prior entry made by its graators
and the failure of the defendants to show
that said prior entries have been invaii-
dated by any decision or adjudication OF
| any court or tribunal having lawful
authority and Jurisdiction to vacate, or set
aside entries which have been allowed in
the local land office. for causes not appear
ing upon the face Of the record in the land
Office"
After citing number of decisions from
the supreme court of the United States,
Judge Hanford says:
Tested by this rule the action of the
land department in cancelling the entries
of Park and flanagan, as set forth in
the affirmative plea contained in this an
swer. was unauthorized and unlawful.
To this extent l agree with counsel for the
complainant. But / consider his position
untenable insofar as he claims that the
denials Of averments of the bill fail TO
raise a material issue. The patent TO Raw
son Is valid as conveyance of the legal
title and give TO the holder status as q
party in interest and successor TO the
rights OF the government, emitting him TO
contest a claim 20 the land by whomsoeyer
asserted. The answer and the patent GER
tainiy support each other and would over
come the prima facie case in favor OF the
complainant made by the issuance of
patent certificates TO its grantors. even had
there been no attempt to cancel said cer-
tificates. To prevail in q controversy with
the holder OF patent the complainant
must aver and prove every fact necessary
TO make out perfect case and establish
actual ownership by an equitable title SUI
perior TO the legal title
Sections 2450-i of the Revised Statutes
provide that the commissioner OF the gen.
eral land Office shall decide all cases of
suspended entries of public lands upon
principles Of equity and IN accordance
with regulations To be prescribed by the
secretary of the treasury, the attorney
general and the commissioner of the gem
eral land office. aud 10 adjudge in what
cases patents shall issue and that every
such adjudication shall be approved by
the secretary Of the treasury and the at
torney general, acting as a board, and
shall operate 20 divest the United States
OF title, without prejudice 10 the rights OF
conflicting claimants. IL may be that the
commissioners is bound by this statute 10
submit his decisions for approval 10 said
board Notwithstanding the apparent fail
ure hitherto of the land department. and
OF the supreme court TO give any
effect 60 its provisions. IL that be
true the most that can be
urged In behalf OF the complainant is that
the cancellation of the entries under
which it claims title was not valid exer-
else OF power Nevertheless, 20 obtain a
decree which will be equivalent 20 4 con-
veyance of title. as prayed for In the bill.
the validity OF the entries upon which the
claim is founded must Re established by
affirmative evidence, taken In accordance
With the rules Of the court BY disregard
ing as shall the decisions of the commits
saoner Of the general land Office and OF the
secretary Of the interior, affecting the
land in controversy, the complainant VIII
have the full benefit Of the last clause OF
section 245I. That is % say, said de-
cisions will. in fact, be without pretudice
To the rights which may be claimed under
the Park aud flanagan entries.
This answer is something OF de-
narture from good form in equity plead
ing. But will treat IL rs a negative plea,
or a plea in bar supported BY an answer
denying the equities o. the bill. 30 con-
sidered ia is not insufficient, and the ex-
eentions must therefore he oyerTuled."
~r-~---