The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1898-04-29
DECISION OF IMPORTANCE
SUPREME COURT SETTLES 4
POINT LONG IN DISPUTE
Case of the Northern Pacific Re-
ceivers Against Lars o. Nygaard
Matter of Satisfaction to the
Railroad Company and Hundreds
of Settlers In Minnesota.

The case of Edwin H. McHenry and
Frank G.. Bigelow. as receivers Of the
Northern Pacific Railroad company,
against Lars o. Nygaard. decided by
the supreme court on Thursday last, Is
of great Importance to railroad COM
panies having land grants and to set
tiers on railroad lands in Minnesota.
Briefly stated, the facts are these:
The land in controversy is within the
indemnity limits of the grant to the
Northern Pacific by act of congress Of
July 2. 1864. The company having def
nitely located the line of it's road, the
commissioner of the general land Of
lands within the limits of the grant be
withdrawn from sale and entry.
In 1882 the defendant Nygaard, a
qualified homesteader, settled upon the
land, and has ever since occupied and
cultivated it, but never filed or at
tempted to enter it as homestead I'M
til November, 1887. On June 10, 1885,
the railroad company selected the land
in the manner prescribed in the grant
ing act. On Nov. 10, 1887, Nygaard
made application at the proper land
office to enter the land as a homestead.
After long contest in the interior de-
partment, Nygaard was permitted to
enter the land, and the railroad COM
pany'S selection was Cancelled
road company, brought suit to eject
Nygaard from the premises, and the
following questions were presented to
the court:
First-Was the commissioners order of
withdrawal sufficient to reserve the lands
So that Nygaards settlement thereon, made
while said order was in full force, was
ineffective for the purpose of investing him
with any rights as against the railroad COM
pany.
Second-Was Nygaards occupation and
cultivation of this land. prior to it's selec-
ton by the railroad company sufficient to
pany's grant, in the absence Of a formal
entry or filing?
Third-Does the fact that there were not
at the time of the definite location of the
line of the road sufficient lands within the
indemnity limits to make good the losses
from the place limits. relieve the company
from the necessity of selection?
The court does not decide the first and
third of these questions, but assumes, without
deciding, that until selection the lands are
open to entry and the one question passed
and occupation of the land prior to its Sc
lection by the company, and on this point
the court says:
Mere occupation md cultivation without
compliance with the law in the matter Of
placing the claim on record in the land
office, was insufficient to defeat the right of
the railroad company, under its grant, to
select the land for indemnity purposes. N.
L
And the court, therefore, decides that the
company, by its selection of the land in 1885,
became entitled to the land, and now directs
judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. One
other question was presented, viz: The
question of the jurisdiction of the court be-
fore patent had issued by the United States.
Nygaard had received receivers final GER
tiicate, and it contended by the defend
ants attorneys that the court had no juris-
diction until the issue of the patent. The
court holds Judge CAVITY dissenting) that,
after final certificate has issued, the title is
so vested that the court will take jurisdiction.
This question whether a settler on rail-
road land acquired any rights thereto before
making a formal entry las been before the
department of the interior for many years.
The court in this decision sustains the posi-
ton for which the attorneys of the railroad
company have always commended. The secre-
tary of the interior ruled to the contrary,
and many hundreds Of contests have grown
out of this ruling. In Otter Tail county alone
Their are now pending some 200 contests in
it!ated by persons who would have purchased
from the Northern Pacific but for the secre-
tarys erroneous ruling. <a
1t is a matter of satisfaction alike to the
railroad company and to these settlers. that
the question has now been authoritatively
settled, as most of the settlers were willing
and anxious to purchase if they could be as
sured of the railroad company's title.