Morris tribune. [volume] (Morris, Minn.) 1880-2000, 1904-06-25
JUDGE BROWNS OPINION
COURT REVERSES ITSELF AND
COMES TO JUDGES
BROWNS VIEW
st. Paul Dispatch.


It is the old case OF Russell Sage,
as assignee in trust of the Hastings u
Dakota Railway company, respon-
dent, VS.. Michael Rudnick, appellant,
and in this decision the supreme
court reverses itself.
In former decision the court af-
firmed the order of the Swift county
court holding for Russell Sage and
the railroad company, but in the
present decision, which is rehear-
ing, the order of the trial court is re-
versed.
A dissenting opinion was filed by
Chief Justice Start and Judge Lewis,
they abiding by the form:r decision
of the court.
Judge Brown, who writes the opln-
ion, reviews the case and gives the
courts decision in syllabus ss fol-
lows:
"In 1866 congress granted to the
State of of Minnesota in aid of the
construction OF railroad therein GER
tain lands consisting of the odd num-
bered sections within ten miles on
either side of the center line of the
road when definitely located. The
state, by chapter 9, Special Laws
1867, accepted the grant, and in turn
granted the lands to the railroad
company upon certain conditions
named in the act. The Hastings &
Dakota Railroad company, the gran
tee and beneficiary, filed it's map of
definite location in June, 1867, fully
complied with the conditions
of the grant, completed its
road in 1880, and the land was form
ally conveyed by the state to plain
tiff, the successor of the railroad COM
pany, in 1898. Defendant settled up
on the land in controversy in this &C.
ton, the same being part of that so
granted to the railroad company,
and within the place limits of it's
grant, in 1877, and has ever since
continuously remained in the open,
adverse and exclusive possession of
the same. Subsequent to fling the
map of definite location by the Hast
sings & Dakota company and the COM
pletion of its road, the St. Paul, Min
neapolis & Manitoba Railroad com
pany made claim to this and other
lands within the primary limits of the
grant to the Hastings & Dakota com.
pany; which claim it presented to the
interior department of the general
government for adjudication where
it was pending and undetermined
from 1868 to 1891, when it was dis
posed of adversely to the Manitoba
company In this action by plaintiff,
successor to all the rights of the
Hastings & Dakota company to re-
cover possessions of the land from de-
fendant tbs held:
'First-That the grant to the rail-
road company was in present., and
the legal title to the land in question
passed to the Hastings & Dakota
railroad company upon the filing of
it's map of definite location in 1867.
''Second-The statute of limitations
began to rur in favor of defendants
alleged title by adverse possession at
the time of his settlement upon the
land, the legal title thereto being then
in the railroad company.
''Third-After the title so passed
from the government to the railroad
company, the interior department
had no jurisdiction to hear or deter
mine the asserted claim of the Mani
toba company. and the tendency of
that controversy before the depart
ment did not suspend the running of
the statute of limitations in favor of
defendants adverse cl.im.
"Fourth-When the legal title to
public land has passed from the gov
eminent, tt Q interior department has
nc jurisdiction to determine con.
troversies between individual claim
ants concerning the title or right to
the possession thereof.
"Fifth-St. Paul. Minneapolis &
Railroad company vs.. Olson,
81 Minnesota. distinguished"