The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-02-11
e..te Commissioners Order the
Sale of School Lands.
..c TRACT ON MAGNOLIA BLUFF
....s 20 Acquire Title Held TO Be valu-
ale and subject OF Assignment
Opinion by Chadwick.


-sssganer Chadwick a right TO acquire III
= undsr an application Is "a valuable
-. .na subject OF assignment. The case
: ,aas q Samuel Oliver, protestant, VS..
$500 Dupee et al, claimants. On July
fss. Dapee made application to pur-
ease ard on August n gave written
sssavnmeut OF the lands covered by the
sopllcasion 20 George Shiel, f. u. Long
- C. Kennedy, the recited considera-
.ssn being S. On July 81 Oliver male ap-
ssscstion 10 purchase the same lands. but
a. application was rejected by the COM
missioner because the maps rendered for
Asnr failed 10 conform to the rules es-
s.AtIs1aea by the commissioner of public
/ suas and the board OF state land COM
nssloners. The application was re-offered
sns again rejected for errors occurring
h the plat. Oliver on September filed
profest against the rejection OF his appii-
fstson and protested against the allow
apcs OF the application OF Dupee for the
reasens. First. they were void In that
they do not describe the applicant as a
e.flxsn OF the United States, second that
his rights we're not assignabIe: third. that
ths sssignees do not appear TO be citizens;
fcuFth that they could acquire no greater
nrhts than could be predicated on the
srxina application: fifth, that while Du-
PEI could not assign his rights or privi-
jegs Of purchase. IL any he had, yet an
Attempted assignment would operate as a
resInquishmeut back TO the state OF the
hnd In controversy. and TO which the APP
clseafion OF Oliver would attach were II
sslnstated.
Taking up the question Of citizenship.
sks commissioner states that he has not
found any requirement OF the law TO
OF effect that an application to purchase
de lands shall contain a statement of the
qualifications Of the applicant. and in the
ahaence OF such requirements he is unwiIl-
ing 70 say II IL necessary incident to the
sling OF a legal application.
Passing 10 the contention that the rights
Of Dupee we're not assisnable. the opinion
states that the authorities cited by the
contestant are all based upon some statu-
ssFy prohibition. and those cited by counsel
for the ass.gnees OF Dupee we're OF assign
msEts made after either possessory right
bad attached under a statute making pos
ssSsson or residence a prerequisite 10 title.
Or where the applicant. by payment OF fees
H reception Of a preliminary certificate
had been recognized as a qualified person
hy the granting power. La the case OF
Dupes oaly an application had been fled
hls rights or status had not been deteFrn ned
By The stale he did not have possession
Or right OF possession OF the land: but
rethef Of those. says the opinion, IS essen
uai 10 his intimate standing as an appl-
cart The question - narrowed down to
sks: Can a simple applicant TO purchase
assign his inchoate right. and. IL 80. viii
the state recognize such asssgnmen.7 After
tscusSlag cited cases the opinion says.
rDupse. being qualified. has filed a legal
Application before any other legal rights
base Interviewed. He Vas In a situation to
iESsi under present statutes that the state
Should perform its obligation To make title,
thoagh Il would not follow that this right
could not be defeated hy subsequent legs
hiioa before patent. but 80 FAR as third
persons are concerned Dupee's rights be-
Zane vested upon fling his application"
In support OF the above statement the
commissioner elites Campbell VS.. Wade.
~ Z. s. 81 He then discusses the case
OF Teifenner VS.. Russ. % Fed. 22s also fi5
80 The opinion concludes:
4 shall take these cases as decisive OF
the question at issue. and conclude. there
soFe. that Dupee's right 20 acquire title
snder bis application was a valuable one.
AM subject Of assignment. And no reason
appearing why the state should not exc
tate contract 10 the assignees. recon-
mend that this case be certified 20 the
lonorable commissioner OF public lands.
with Instructions 10 enter into a contract
q purchase with the assiguees OF Dupee
Tor The lands IN controversy.
Under this theory or the case, IL is UNI
r@csssary TO decide the question OF pu-
pes present status and relation 10 the
ssats. and no showing having been made
tpon The suggestion made by contestant
Dis brief that this land Is a part OF the
state OF Oregon. and this state having
asserted title 90 IL. We could assume that
Is a part OF this state until otherwise
eessgmined by higher tribunal"
The Docket Tor To-day.
In the docket for yesterday a number
CONTINUANCE a.
esesst Tor today made up as follows:
s'ock ~. lot 2. Washington Dredging
az Improvement Company, 1,Tu, VS. Jo-
va Collins. La
Beck 81, lots T. and s. w. n. SI CO.
1t "a DuwamlSh Dairy Company, ISIS
ssafHs
Book sol lots and >. w. u. III. Co.
A.ts, IS. Collins. / "a
F.eek se. lots 70 6 Inclusive. W. d. G.
= N9s t.1E rs. Ftlrth 1857
heseS M lots ! and . w. y. & L Co.
IL IS Estate Samuel Kenney. 1851. 81.
siefk aG boz s. W. ID. & I. Co. La, vs..
ssiasy i96a
:, hanlsa, 1854 Squire ct TX. l.s25, vs..
hAaiia fSa
tesS H2 iot T. w n. T. Co. LT47 VS.
hamlsn tao3 ana f.ssa
.heek SO. lots and !. w n. & l. Co,
- Squire II AK. I 3s4 vs.. sidney. i.e5o
BOX eei, Loo I. " D s I. Co. i.745. Mai
"a - Terry. ioss
,s.osk -. lots . and 4. W. u. & I. Co.
~ " Terry. .eds
sss1k rs W u, & I. Co. LA. vs.. Ham
~ isSs-l ssa
rs'eek ~ lot ]. W. n. 4 I. Co. LTa7.
esFNarn LIS. ". Terry. .0sS
- - lot = ". u. 6 J. Co. i,Tss.
,.sees - lots ana 4. w. n & l. Co.
- Jones, ISIS. IS. Terry. i.@s6
49, -, lots S and Z. w n. & I Co.
- wellington. isgS vs. Terry. Less
~ - loi s ". n. 4 l. ca. i.-l7
,asston, l5gN Dearborn. I.sIi. vs. Terry.
u ~ Dearborn. l2n
a.sk ~ lot = w u. al Co. i-E.
levman. lis.
$50 -. boz : w u &r Co. lr4T.
80. Ina ys Iowunaa lfsT
A. p lot I. W y, 4 l. Co. vs.. Dear
sesk IS lot : W. n. 81 60. r-s-
$50, l@E Riley IN. Alsaa. I.lsa
Sehssan, iesl
rs,ess ~. hos s. ". .. 81 CO. Ira.
:. s'se.g'c Company. i.ssi simon, lIae
AFa'sieat. legs
- sa- lee & w n &I ca 1sF
-. slectric Company. Lsea. vs. Arrsl-
- Dearborn. IS
sk - lols aad ;. ". d 81 o.
- DyaFho~r. $50
- - soiS : 60 g. Inclusive. ". u. a
- ~tt - Dearborn. HES
L. tais % d inclusive w d q
- l'c. rs. DeAroorn. f.ssS
-~~----s-----------