The Saint Paul globe., 1904-06-18
RUSSELL SAGE LOSES
IN SUPREME COURT
Decision In HIS Favor Is Re.
Versed-Elghteen Cases Are
Disposed Of


In a total of eighteen decisions hand
preme court there are a number of inn
portant rulings.
The test case in which the Hastings
& Dakota railways assigns are trying
TO oust certain settlers in its land
grant is decided in favor of the set
tier.
The court decides. in the proceedings
brought to compel the state auditor to
issue a mineral lease on lands under
a certain lake in Itasca county, that it
will not review ministerial acts of a
state officer when brought before it by
means of a writ of certiorari.
The wild mustard law is upheld in
an appeal from Redwood county, and
the Lamprey pass duck shooting case
is upheld as it came from the Ramsey
county court. There are number of
other cases. but the ones cited are the
most important. OF the eighteen cases
decided, but two are reversals of the
lower courts.
The so-called Russell Sage" case is
perhaps the most important of the de-
ciSions filed yesterday. The case is an
appeal by Michael Rudnick, a Swift
county farmer, from the decision of
the district court of that county and
involves a question of federal law.
The court holds that the statute of
limitations began to run in favor of the
defendant at the time Of his settle
ment on the land in controversy, and
not from the time that the title passed
from the government to the railroad
company and he is given the land by
virtue of adverse possession. The case
will undoubtedly be appealed to the
United States supreme court
From the decision of the majority,
Justices Start and Lewis dissent. The
opinion was written by Justice Brown.
The syllabus is appended:
Russell Sage Loses
Russell Sage VS.. Assignee in Trust of the
Hastings & Dakota Railway Company,
Respondent VS.. Michael Rudnick, APP
pellant.
In 1866 congress granted. to the state of
Minnesota in aid of the construction of a
railroad therein certain lands consisting
of the odd numbered 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, ac-
cepted the grant and in turn granted the
lands to the railroad company upon GER
tain conditions named in the act. The
Hastings & Dakota Railroad company,
the grantee and beneficiary, filed its map
OF definite location in June, 1867, fully
compiled with the conditions of the grant,
completed its road in 1880. and the land
was formally conveyed by the state to
plaintiff, the successor of the railroad
company. in 1893.
Defendant settled upon the land in con-
troYersy in this action, 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 con-
tnuously remained in the open, adverse
and exclusive possession of the same.
Subsequent to filing the map of definite
location by the Hastings & Dakota COM
pany. and the completion of its road the
st. Paul, Minneapolis q Manitoba Rail
road company 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 in
terror department of the general govern
ment for adjudication, where it was
pending and undetermined from 1888 to
1891. when 1t was disposed of adversely
to the Manitoba company. In this action
by plaintiff, successor to all the rights of
the Hastings & Dakota company to re-
cover possession of the land from de-
]. That the grant to the railroad COM
pany was in praesenti and the legal title
to the land in question passed to the
Hastings & Dakota Railroad company
upon the f1llng of its map of definite loea-
tion in 1867
2. The statute of limitations began to
run in favor of defendants alleged title
settlement upon the land, the legal title
thereto being then in the railroad com
pany.
3. After the title so passed from the
government to the railroad company the
interior department had no jurisdiction to
hear or determine the asserted claim of
the Manitoba company. and the pendency
OF that controversy before the department
did not suspend the running of the statute
of limitations in favor of defendants ad-
verse claim.
4. When the legal title to public land
has passed from the government, the in