The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-04-04
IRELAND DEEDS 0. I.
Supreme Court Passes on Traverse
County Land Cases.
SOME 10000 ACRES INVOLVED
The Trouble Was Caused by the In
terror Department Revers-
ing Itself.

terror department HeVers-
! ing Itself.
Five decisions were LANDED down by the
supreme court this morning. They were
leases heard at the October term, whose
4 settlement has been delayed.
The most important case involves the
title to $4,000 acres in Traverse and ad-
Joining counties, originally taken by Arch
bishop Ireland from the Manitobas land
grant. The settlers lose and title Is con-
t1rmed in those who bought the land from
the archbishop.
The trouble was caused by the interior
departments reversing itself. The land
was originally granted to the railroad
company and withdrawn from settlement
IN 1891 the secretary Of the interior is.
sued an order restoring the lands to the
public domain, and this was held to apply
to all. The order directed to the st. Cloud
land Office. however, excepted lands en-
braced in selections heretofore made or
applied for by said railroad company"
This, the court holds, reserved the lands
IN question, Which had been selected
| Archbishop Ireland contracted for the
tract from the railroad company, but,
4 meanwhile, squatters filed claims.
1 In 1896 all indemnity selections were
cancelled except those under dispute. The
claim OF the settlers was rejected by the
commission, and by the interior depart
ment. The present suit was brought as
a test case. The decision Of the interior
department was sustained by the district
court, and is also upheld in the opinion
handed down to-day by Judge Collins.
The syllabus follows:
John P O'Connor, respondent, VS.. Jacob
| Gertgens, appellant
! F1rst-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 it is deemed
| an act OF the president It seems to be
| quite immaterial what may be the basis of
the order Of withdrawal, or what public land
| 1t affects.
| secondly the congressional land grant act
OF March g. 1865 q3 stats. $3.50 1t was made the
| duty or the secretary of the interior-sec-
ton Ito withdraw lands in aid of the grant
therein provided for. Subsequently, by Sec
tion OF the act Of congress Of Sept. 20, 1890
! (26 stats. 1857, section z was repealed Held
| that this repeal did not revoke or annul an
executive order, previously made, whereby
| certain, lands had been Withdrawn from the
public domain for the benefit of the grant
| Thirdly the 9Th section of an act of March
| 3, 1887, (25 stats. 656) 1t was provided that
when railroad companies had sold lands, as
parts OF their grants, co-terminus with their
| constructed lines of road, to citizens, or to
| persons who had declared their intention to
| become citizens, but for some reason these
| lands were excepted from the operation Of
the grants and could not be conveyed to the
companies, these citizens, or persons, if
| bona fde 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 a
/ design to Fefectuate its object, and that
citizenship, or declaration of intention to be-
/ come a citizen, and bona flde purchase are
! the essentials required by its terms. Held
! further, that the right OF one who purchased
land from a railroad company, prior to the
| passage OF the act OF March g. 1887, to perfect
| title under section 8 Of that act, is superior
to the settlement right of another person ac-
| quired after the aassage of said act.
| Fourth-Wher6 .pn. a3has been long and
4 uniforH course IA ra ruling statue in a
tribunal charged writ the duty OF executing
TT, such construction is always entitled to
the most respectful consideration by the
| courts and ought not to be overruled without
I cOgent reasons.
! Fifth-The expression "bona ide pur-
! chaser is oftentimes used ambiguously and
| Is construed In various ways. The context
| must be examined and the expression con-
! sidered with reference to it's use and the con-
| nection in which it is found 1t may mean
| without fraud or deception; it may mean
| without notice of others rights; it sometimes
| signifies honesty Of purpose as distinguished
| from bad faith. To be bona f1de purchaser
| may, under some circumstances, require the
payment Of the consideration, or purchase
price. but not always. In the statute In ques
ton the term bona fde'' was used as the
| opposition of 'mala f1de." Held in the case
! at bar, following the rulings of the appro-
pirate officers of the land department. that
! the plaintiffs grantor, to whom the patent
! was issued, was bona t1de purchaser Of the
/ land in dispute within the meaning of said
| section s.
| Sixth-It Is we'll settled that authority to
hear and determine all questions Of fact aris-
! ing in the land department of the general
government is exclusively within the control
! of the appropriate officers of that department
| The jurisdiction thus conferred is judicial
I in It's nature and the decisions of the de-
| partment officers when acting within their
Jurisdiction are final and conclusive, in the
| absence of fraud, or imposition, or mistake
! Seventh--The same rule applies where the
question presented to the department officials
| is one Of mixed law and fact. Their decf-
/ sion is equally as conclusive as to the fact
involved Order affirmed. Collins, J.
terror Departments Revers-
! Cemetery associations which take advan-
! tage of the incorporation laws of the
state are obliged to treat the property as
a public trust, and must account to own
ers of lots for the proper use of the money
paid in. This decision is reached in a
case appealed from Luverne, Rock county.
! 1t was brought by district iudege, P. p.
Brown. and others, against the Maplewood
Cemetery association. Judge Loren Cray
Of Mankato decided demurrer in favor
| of the defendants, holding that there was
no cause of action, but this is overruled
and the case will be tried upon it's merits.
The syllabus:
Philip E. Brown ct al, appellants. vs., The
Maplewood Cemetery Association ct al. re-
spondents
| First-Title s. chapter "a. G. S. 1878. III
G. s. 1894, relates to Corporations other than
| those for pecuniary profit" and the inclusion
! Of cemetery associations therein by the amend
ment to such title, chapter 81, G. L. 1872. does
not authorize the incorporation in this state
| of burial places as scheme for private spec,1-
lation and profit.
| Second-In view Of the public nature Of the
use Of cemetery grounds, a corporation ORGAN
| lied for the avowed purpose of establishing a
public cemetery without capital stock or con-
tributlons from the members cannot in this
state be adapted to the acquisition Of profits
and emoluments by the directors and ineorpo-
rators.
| Third-A cemetery association SO organized
having sold lots as burial pieces which have
4 =