The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-07-26
/. FIGHT FOR LAND.
Struggle for Western Kansas
Farms on in Earnest.
At Least a Million Dollars
Worth at Issue.
MANY SUITS FILED.
They All Affect Title to These
Lands.
Forty Eight Are i'm the Federal
Court.

Western Kansas land valued at up
wards of $1.000.o0O with an acreage run
ming into the thousands is the issue OF
hundreds of lawsuits which are being
filed in the state district courts and OF
As suits filed in the United States cir
cult court.
The suits may dispossess large num-
| bers of the present holders of valuable
! quarter sections in Trego, Thomas, De-
catur, Cheyenne and Norton counties
| where a large portion. of the land that
| is involved lies.
1t is estimated by Judge Lee Monroe,
former resident of western Kansas,
and well versed in the situation that 600
suits have been filed of late in the state
courts.
Thursday was the last day allotted for
filing suits in the United States circuit
court and at the time of closing forty
eight suits had been filed affecting $500
acres in Trego, Norton, Cheyenne
Thomas and Decatur counties, of which
easily one-half of this acreage is in the
latter county.
All of this land was formerly state
school land and the issue raised in these
suits is whether the state had a right to
claim forfeiture in the case of those who
defaulted in the payments due to the
state.
In the early eighties a large number of
settlers came to Kansas and purchased
state school lands for $500 per acre pay
able in ten annual installments with in
terest on the deferred payments. In a
majority of instances number of pay
ments were made and then crop failures
brought encouragement and inability
to meet payments resulting in forfeiture.
The state came in Immediately and de-
clared the defaulter without rights and
after holding the land resold it again to
other purchasers. People started to buy
these state school lands from the state
again as early as 1897 and from that
time they have been in such demand
with land purchasers consequent on the
succession of good crops that but little
of the choice land remain on the mar
ket.
who stand to lose their present posses
sion of valuable quarter sections for the
original purchasers claim that the state
had no right to claim forfeiture and re-
fuse to restore ownership when the orig
inaI purchasers tender the amount of the
defaulted payments together with ac-
crued interest. The claim is based on
the act of the legislature of 1903 which
granted twenty years additional time to
purchasers of state school lands in which
to make payments. This law came Into
effect from five to ten years following
the great number of forfeitures and it is
held by the state to apply only from
the time of the enactment of the law.
Many of the first purchasers live out
side of the state and would like to profit
by the increase in the value of the lands
which they formerly held, from So to SIS,
$40 and even $25 an acre. Where the
parties reside within the state suits are
brought in the state courts while in
cases where one or more of the interest
ed parties reside outside of the confines
of Kansas suit is brought in the United
States circuit court.
Spectators in land have been quick
to pick upon the chances which exist
in ousting the present holders of these
disputed farming lands and are eager
ly purchasing up the claims or the
original purchasers and filing suit
One of these spectators, M. +. Beatty
of Kentucky, filed twenty of these
suits for over 500 acres. The last leg
islature provided under an enactment
that all suits affecting state school
lands of the above nature must not be
filed later than months following
the passage of the law, that time ex-
pired Thursday evening. No more
suits can therefore be filed. The same
law provided that it was not necessary
to get personal service and notif1ca-
ton to the owner of school land who
had defaulted payments in order to
declare forfeiture and also provided
that because many former notices had
been lost an entry in the records of
the county clerk SnOulQ Do pTlIHd La
Gle evidence of each Forfeiture
Forty-eight cases have been filed in
the United States circuit court of ap- |
peals.
The usual form of the petition which |
the plaintiff files in the United States |
court is covered in the following petit |
lion which affords a good idea of |
the complaint:
THAT the plaintiff has a legal es-
ate in and is entitled to the immediate |
possession of the following described
zeal estate situated in the county of
Decatur and the state of Kansas. That
he defendants unlawfully keep plain
iff out of possession of said premises.
That the defendants while unlawfully
xeeping plaintiff out of possession of
aid premises as aforesaid, have ever
since the 5th of December. excluded
plaintiff from the rents, issues and
profits of said premises and refuse to
account to plaintiff therefore. or to
,ay plaintiff any part of the value
hereof and that the value of the
.ents. issues and profits of the prem
ses from said date and the damages