The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1902-04-05

others against the MapleWood Cemetery
Association of Luverne, the court holds
that it is illegal to form a private cor
poration to own and manage a ceme-
terry for pecuniary profit.
The incorporators took in over $1,000
and used it themselves. The court
holds that this money must be ac-
counted for to the lot owners as stock
holders and used in improvement of
the cemetery. Judge Lovely says:
Unless we have gravely misappre-
hended the enlightened public sentiment,
which has largely made the mortuary
law of the country. the fierce race tor
wealth restraints its traficking hand at
the portals of the grave"
Other decisions were:
Land Title Is Upheld
John P. OConnor, respondent, VS.. jacob
Sertgens, appellant.
l. The secretary Of the interior pos
sesses full power to withdraw public
lands from settlement and market at will,
and when he acts in this respect is IS
deemed an act of the president. 1t seems
to be quite immaterial what may be the
basis of the order of withdrawal or what
public land it affects.
2. By the congressional land grant act
of March g. 1865 Us Stats. $3.50, it was made
the duty of the secretary of the interior
section Ito withdraw lands in aid Of
the grant therein provided for. Suisse
quently, by section of the act of con-
gress of Sept 20 1890 (26 Stats 1861 Sec
ton Z was repealed. Held, that this re-
peal did not revoke or annul an executive
order, previously made, whereby certain
lands had been withdrawn from the pub
lie domain for the benefit Of the court.
3. By the fifth section of an act or
March 3, 1887 (25 Stats. $685. it was pro-
Vided that when railroad companies mad
sold lands, as parts of their grants, CO.
terminus with their constructed lines of
N citizens mad
declared their intention to become citizens,
but for some reason those lands were
excepted from the operation of the grants
and could not be conveyed to the COM
panies, those citizens, or persons, if bona
fide purchasers should have the right to
buy of the government and should there
upon be entitled to patents. Held, that
this section must be construed literally
with design to effectuate it's object, and
that citizenship, or declaration of inten-
ton to become citizen, and a bona 1ide
purchase are the essentials required by
its terms. Held further, that the right
of one who purchased land from rail
road company prior to the passage Of
the act of March 3, 1867, to perfect title
under section Of that act, is superior to
the settlement right of another person &C
Quired after the passage of said act.
4. Where there has been a long and
uniform course in constructing statute in
a tribunal charged With the duty OF eX-
ecuting it, such construction is always
ton by the courts and ought not to be
overruled without cogent reasons.
5. The expression bona fide purchaser
is Oftentimes used ambiguously and IS
construed in various ways. The context
must be examined and the expression con-
sidered with reference to its use and the
connection in which 1t is found. 1t may
mean without fraud or deception; 1t may
mean without notice of others rights; IT
sometimes signifies honesty of purpose as
distinguished from bad faith. To be q
bona f1de purchaser may, under some cir
cumstances, require the payment of the
consideration or purchase price, but not
always In the statute in question the
term bona fide" was used as the opposite
of ''mala fide." Held, in the case at bar,
following the rulings of the appropria tie
officers of the land department, that the
plaintiffs grantor, to whom the patent
was issued, was bona fide purchaser OF
the land in dispute within the meaning OF
said section 5.
6. 1t is well settled that authority TO
hear and determine all questions of fact
arising in the land department Of the gen
eral government is exclusively within the
control of the appropriate officers of that
department. The jurisdiction thus con-
ferred is judicial in its nature, and the
decisions of the department officers, when
acting within their jurisdiction, are final
and conclusive, in the absence of fraud,
or imposition, or mistake.
T. The same rule applies where the
question presented to the department Of
ficials is one of mixed law and fact. Their
decision is equally as conclusive as to the
fact involved Order affirmed.