The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-02-07
RAILROAD
LOSES A SUIT
OF IMPORTANCE
Involves Vast Land
Interests.
COULD NOT GIVE TITLE
DESERT BETWEEN MoJAVE AND
NEEDLES IN DISPUTE.
This Is Said to Be but the Fore
runner of Suits Aggregating
Half a Million
Dollars.
DESERT BETWEEN MoJAVE AND
NEEDLES IN DISPUTE.

Justice of the Peace Thomas F. Dunn
decided a case against the Southern Pa
cif1c Railroad Company yesterday which
is said to be but the forerunner of a series
of suits involving over half a million dol
lars. Louis Lipman sued to recover
S226 so paid the railroad company for a
quarter-section of land lying between Mo-
jave and The Needles, within the main
line grant of the Southern Pacific Com
pany, under act of Congress of July q,
1866. The company had no patent for the
land in controversy and had never estab-
lished its title to the land, hence the de-
cision in favor of the plaintiff for the
amounts he had paid as principal and in
terest No deed was ever delivered to the
plaintiff for the land, and it was upon
the provisions OF a contract requiring that
that he based his rights to recover.
In deciding the case Justice Dunn de-
cided two questions. First, has it been
finally determined that patent shall not
issue? He says:
The land in controversy here lies be-
tween Mojave and The Needles. and is with
in the main line grant of the Southern Pa
cine Company, under the act Of Congress
by the defendant a branch line under
the act of Congress of March 3. 1911
In the case OF Schwartz VS.. Southern Pa
cific Railroad Company, decided on Septem-
Der H. 1898, by his Honor, Judge Seawell.
1t was held that under the cases Of L. S.
VS.. s. P Co. 146 T. S $40, and S. ?. 20.
VS.. L. S. los L. S. l, it had not been finally
determined that patent shall not issue to
defendant for land within the main line
grant under the act Of July. 1866.
In the case of U. S. VS.. S. P. R. r: CO. :
ct al. Sc Fed. Rep. 961, decided April p,
1898, wherein the particular land in contro-
versy here was litigated ii was held by the
Circuit Judge that patent shall not issue TO
defendant herein for this land. This case
is now on its way TO the supreme Court OF
the United States, ana the decision of the
latter tribunal Will directly decide the
status of this property.
1 shall hold that it has not been finally
determined that patent shall not issue TO
defendant for the land in controversy in
this action.
Has the defendant used ordinary diligence
to procure patent? "
witness for the defendant, it appears that
there was no attempt at selection OF this :.
land or to make any listing Thereon ID
the land office under the act of July z.
1866. prior TO the 3lst of August, 1894; IN
other words that, within a few days,
was six years after the execution OF the
contract hereinbefore mentioned before any
steps were taken as to the acquiring OF
patent to the land. The reason assigned LOT
the failure TO make selection prior 10 sald
last mentioned date was that the Secre-
tary of the Interior had not approved, untlI
September, 1897, of the report hled on De
cenber q 1854, made by the commissioners
appointed by the President to report upon
the road, constructed
I am Of the. opinion that the detendant
failed to use ordinary diligence TO procure
patent for the land in controversy; ana;
considering the fact that the plaintln dld 81
not 20 into possession of the property; tnat
his rights under the contract, so far as the
use of timber and making Of permanent I'M
provements were concerned, were restrict
ed and inasmuch as the defendant mas
never established its title TO the land, / am
also of the opinion that the plaintiI rs en-
titled to recover the amounts PAID as m
terest as well as the amount PAID upon the
Yarfr7a