, 1896-04-09
IMPORTANT DECISION.
Judge Hayford's Contempt for
the Land Department.
MUST GO.
Case Of Sse SECOND National Hank OF
8rOWnsviDIe. Pa. ct al. VS.. los.
eph DeIies snd Albert Webb
Disposed of.

The case of the Second National
bank Of Brownsville, Pa, Hilda Lamb
and Allie c. McMechan vs.. Joseph Del
les and Albert Webb was decided in the
district court this morning by Judge
Hayford in favor of the plaintiffs. The
land in controversy is situated near the
Little Laramie on what is known as
the Douglas william ranch. The facts
in the case are as follows:
In 1891 T. J. Fisher brought a con-
test against Henry Carver to set aside
Carver's presumption claim upon the
land. The contest was decided in Car
ver's favor and Carver afterward relin-
quished his title to the land, upon
which REIMBURSEMENT Fisher filed upon
the tract under the desert land act. The
land department received Fishers fl
ing in 1888 and Fisher afterward prov
ed up on the land and paid to the gov
eminent the purchase price. The land
Office took his money and issued a final
receipt which was recorded in the
county clerks Office and under our law
is evidence of title equivalent to a
patent. Fisher afterward sold the
land to Judson. Sutphin & Co.. and
moved away. Judson. Sutphin Il Co.
sold the and in 1888 to the Douglas
william Sartoris company. the prchase
price being $4,000. The plaintiffs in
the suit acquired title through the
william Sartoris company.
Five years after Fisher had proved up
on the land, receiving his final receipt,
four a after he had sold the land
to others and moved away, and as the
evidence seemed to indicate. one year
after Fisher died. the land Office at
tempted to cancel Fishers Anal re-
ceipt. Not OF the ground that he had
done anything wrong or had been gull
ty of any fraud. but on the pretended
ground that in the old Carver contest
the land was shown to be non-desert
land. In order to do this under the
rules Of the department they had to
first serve notice on the person inter-
ested in the land. They sent to Fisher
a registered letter. which was returned
u~ncalled for. and then the commission
er Of the land office wrote a letter of
cancellation. stating that Fishers fill
ing was Cancelled on account of expira-
tioD of the statutory period, that Is,
that more than three years had elapsed
since Fisher had made his filing and
no final proof had beer made. This
was ridiculous In face of the tact that
Fisher had proved up and paid :'or the
land five years before the letter of
cancellation was written. Thereupon
after the Fisher entry was attempted
to be cancelled, bellies and Webb filed
on the land. Webb filed under the des-
ert land act and these suits were
brought to O possession Of the
land.
The court held that the action of the
land department in taking Fishers
money with full knowledge of all the
facts as to the character of the land
and afterwards canceling his entry and
taking the land back again to sell it to
some one else was not in accord with
the principles Of common honesty,
that If the same thing had been done
by an ordinary individual that had
been done by the land department in
this case 1t would have been a peniten-
tiary offense. He expressed himself as
seriously embarrassed in rendering a
decision owing to the fact that the
record in the land Office was such that
an injustice would have to be done one
of two innocent parties. All his SYM
pathies were with the defendants in
the case, who were poor men and had
gone on the land in good faith. But
this did not warrant a disregard of the
law and the decision of courts. he
could not take land that belonged to
one party and give it to another.
1t is understood that the case will
be appealed to the supreme court.