The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-09-28
LOWER COURT DID RIGHT.
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS SAYS
NO ERROR WAS MADE BX
ALLOWING
TEMPORARY INJUNCTION TO ISSUE.
Five Other Orders Handed Down IN
Which the Lower Courts We're
Sustained.

courts were confirmed. Justice Brewer
and Judges Sanborn and Thayer were
on the bench Two of the decisions
dispose of cases which originated IN
the federal courts of Minnesota, and
one of them disposes of the rights OF
settlers to land patented to them by
the federal government.
The original plaintiffs in this action
were Simon Murphy ct al. against F.
H. Kirwan, United States surveyor
general for the district of Minnesota,
and Thomas H Croswell, appellants.
The appeal is from the federal circuit
court, and the opinion confirming the
lower tribunal is written by Judge
Riner, of the Wyoming district.
This is an action in equity for an
injunction in equity to restrain appel
lants from surveying certain lands sur
rounding Cedar Island lake in township
81. of ST. Louis county. The resurvey
had been ordered by the federal gov
eminent, and Surveyor Kirwau con-
tracted with Croswell, as deputy SUI
veyor to perform the work Murphy
and the other appeIlees, who are set
tiers and patentees on the land near
the lake. secured from the United
States circuit court "a temporary re-
straining order against appellants,
from which judgment an appeal was
taken. Patents covering the township
involved were issued in 1876, and fol-
lowing the survey all Of the lands were
disposed of to settlers and other par
| ties.
I In MANY instances, the decision says,
the government plat is uncertain and
orb the entire town.
ship. Cedar Island lake, in the north
/ ern part of the township, is consider
ably smaller than is shown in the
original survey from which the official
| plat was drafted, and as a consequence
| the fractional lots owned by appeilees
are considerably larger than they APP
pear to be on the plat. They are all
near or border upon the lake But
small portion of the township is cover
ed in the governments order for the
resurvey. which was made in 1888 Ger
| tain parties having taken up portions
! of these fractional lots, the order FRO
vided for a survey of the land between
| the meander line and the lake. Dis
cussing the discrepancy between the
meander line and the lake, the court
| says:
| 1--WE think it is we'll established that in all
| of the states where the common law rule is
| in force the title of the purchaser from the
| general government of lands bordering on
| non-navigable waters within the state extends
! to the waters meandered. line. although the
| meander line of the survey be found TO De
| not eeincident with the shore ana the SUI.
! yev line is to be disregarded.. The law OF
| Minnesota with regard to the rights OF rlpaT-
| ian owners, is the common law ana the RUE
/ aDpI:ed ait common law TO non-naVIsaple
| streams is applicable as well to inland non
! nayigable lakes The court in another place
| refers to the common rule as giving tne
| owner of property on non-naVlSaple stledli
| ownership to the thread of the current WEeFe
the stream is navigable the ownership ex-
| tends to high-water mark.
| objection was also made in the lower
court by appellees that the resurvey
wo11ld destroy much valuable pine TIM
| her on account of the running OF tran
sit lines through the forest. Inc COURT
also considers this point well taken.
Tn conclusion the court says that tine
lower court did not err in allowing the
| temporary injunction to issue
GREAT WESTERN WINS.
The case of Adolph T. Rosen, plain
| tiff in error, against the Chicago
Great Western Railroad company, de-
| PENDANT in error, another Minnesota
case. was also decided. Rosen owned
a tannery in South ST. Paul, which was
| totally destroyed. together With It's
contents, on Aug. II, 1893, it is alleged
by sparks from a motor engine owned
! and operated by defendant company.
| Damages were sought. In the lower
! court a jury found for defendant COM
i pany and Rosen appealed, alleging
| error in the courts instructions to the
| Jury. Judge Riner, in the higher court
! opinion confirms the judgment issued
| below.
OTHER CASES AFFIRMED.
The Judgment of the lower court was
| affirmed in the case of the City OF
| Denver plaintiff in error, against the
Barber Asphalt Paving Company, de-
PENDANT in error, in error to the Unit
ed States circuit court OF the district
of Colorado. The opinion is per curlam.
The case of the board of county COM
missoners of the County Of Kiowa,
Kas., plaintiff in error, against George
r. Howard defendant in error, was
decided in an opinion by Judge Riner;
The judgment of the court below is
! affirmed This was an action to re-
| cover interest on certain coupons de-
tached from county refundfng bonds.
The opinion in the case of the Cow
enant Mutual Benefit Association Of
Illinois, plaintiff in error, against En-
ma Peters, defendant in error in error
te the federal circuit court of the
by Judge Thayer. The judgment of
the lower court is affirmed. This is
an action to recover on insurance GER
tificates issued to the deceased husband
of defendant in error.
The judgment of the court below is
affirmed in a decision written by Judge
Thayer in the case of Caroline Mon
tague, plaintiff in error. against the
Chicago, Milwaukee & ST. Paul Rail-
road company, defendant in error In
error to the United States circuit court
of the district of South Dakota This
9s an action for personal injuries re-
sulting from the death of the husband
of plaintiff in error at Madison, South
Dakota. on Nov %, 1895, and the opin-
ion says that the whole question is
whether the trial court erred in grant
ing peremptory instruction to the
jury to find for defendant in error at
the conclusion of the evidence.