The Ely miner. [volume] (Ely, Minn.) 1895-1986, 1896-03-04
Co >,TRACT ALL RIGHT.
Contracts Made BY Nee and Sharp
Legal

About two years ago the Tower
paper published contract which Nee
& Sharp, the land attorneys, were
making with persons who made Ill
ings under the timber and stone act
and declared that it was fraudulent
and illegal and reflected upon them
quite severely. Tile article was
copied in the Duluth papers and ia
the St. Paul and Minneapolis papers.
The contract was passed upon by
Monroe Nichols, register OF the land
office, and was said TO be all right.
MeSsrs. Nee & Sharp did not reply 10
the articles. They say, now. that they
could not do so. They believed the
contract to be legal, but only the de-
cison of the department could de-
termine it. The decision was made
a few days ago by Hoke Smith, secre-
tary Of the interior, and sustains the
contract. The decision has not been
received at the Duluth Office, but a
copy of it has been received by Harry
Nee.
The contract referred to is an agree
ment made between land attorneys
and persons desiring to file, by which
the latter, in consideration for the
description and estimates OF a tract
of land, which shall contain specified
number of feet of standing pine, con-
d..clin-. him over il and performing
tn necessary legal services to enable
him to secure il. agrees to pay the
attorneys a certain price per thousand
fteC when he receives the land. The
person making the filing is to
pay the land office fees and purchase
price per acre.
The case in which the contract was
tested was that of LeStina Kingston
VS.. Henry Eckman, involving lands in
section Is and 1869. On June 10,
1893. when the survey was fled, Eek
man filed timber and stone applica-
ton. Lestina Kingston also filed a
similar application on the same day.
which was held subject to Eckman's.
She was alio. - = file later on. On
Sept. Is. 1S9a Eckman gave notice of
his intention to make final proof, and
Dec. is, OF the same year, was fixed as
the date. On that day Mrs. Kingston
appeared and protested. She charged
Eckman obtained priority by physical
force and intimidation. that his
affidavit of no improvements on the
land was false, AM that he had en-
tered into an agreement with other
persons to give them an interest in
| the land.
Register Taylor decided for Eckman
and Receiver Frazer for Mrs. Kings
ton. The general land office affirmed
the registers decision. The secretary
sustains the general Office and register
The case is discussed at length, but
the point of interest here is as to the
contract, and only that part will be
quoted.
The secretary says he has examined
the contract and the portion of the
law which it is alleged to violate
This provides that the person filing
shall have made no contract or agree
ment by which the title shall inure to
the benefit of any person except him
self. The secretary says:
1.-The only agreement or contract
forbidden by the statute is one by
which the title may inure. in whole
or in part, to the benefit Of any person
except the applicant himself. If the
agreement or contract is not of this
nature, it cannot be in violation Of
the statute. The statute itself makes
specific designation Of the kind of
agreement or contract that is for
hidden. 1t will be observed from its
language that the agreement or con-
tract which may inure to the benefit
of some other person than the appli-
can't must affect, in whole or in part
the title to the land. Under the
strtute of frauds, such title can only
pass to a stranger by some instrument
in writing. Hence we must conclude
that the terms Of this agreement
were not intended to go to the extent
of affecting any title which Eckman
might acquire from the government,
and we must also conclude that these
parties were to be paid for their
services as set forth in the agreement,
whether Eckman secured patent to
the land or not. 1t must be held
that If Eckman intended to make