The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1908-03-07
Attorneys Likely to Appeal Big
Land Suit.
Judge PolIock's Decision for
Settlers Is Important.
AFFECTS HUNDREDS.
Gives Many Farmers Title TO
Their Lands.
Contest Between Spectators
and Occupants Of Lands.

ATTORNEYS for the spectators In
western Kansas lands who invested
In the original certificates or pur-
chase held by the first settlers. are
likely to take an appeal from the de-
cision of Judge John c. POLLOCK
handed down yesterday afternoon IN
the United States circuit court when
found for the present owners OF the
land. If an appeal is not taken the
attorneys may institute a new suit at
a different angle.
"Eror1 the fact that there are prob
ably a half a dozen law nrns inter
fire state, 1t is impossible for me 10
sneak positively until L have had time
~ consult with them" said Charles
CAN'T of Mulvane and Gault, one OF
the firms employed by the plalntlrs;
"But we may either taRe an aPPea1
$echnics1 subject but this is about
what it amounts ton the state
courts an action in equity is recognized
as an action in law In the Iederal
rractice It Is different, you have to
establish your action In law as wen
as your action in equity.
railing the cue from Judge Pol
1oclr that the spectators may have
81 aouitabIe interest in the land 1t is
possible that new suits Will De nleo
which will call on the present occu,
pants of western Kansas scn t,a
interest that they hold. In other
words they will be compelled TO pay
off the claims of the SPECTATORS OF
refusing this to sell their lana 10 Inc
speculator at an equitable price.
The fight has been based up TO TINS
.{oI7f Of
siect the occupants of the land simply
having them for the improvements
made Had Judge Pollock held Tor
this ejectment 1t would have mean
the wholesale removal or hunoredS Oh
Families in central and western Kan
90. c,,f ~ their homes which had
been theirs for the past i've TO ten
years.
About thirty-four cases were
brought in the federal court the plain
tiffs or spectators IN eacn lIsta me-
heine residents of other states. me
snit of M. P. Beatty of Missouri
against Charles H. Wilson of Decatur
county. Kansas, which was used as
fest. contains the following 1acts;
Beatty, a Spectator in western h re ttss
first purchase to school land issued by
the state for the particular sectlon OF
land involved, the cert1hcate having
been issued to o. L. Peck on OcIoper
4.
state law relating to school lands
peck failed to keep up his part OF the
agreement made with the state; nor
ala his assignees to whom ne signed
over his rights, and on september 10.
1899 the county clerk of Decatur
countv sent a notice to Peck ana his
essirnee. the J. I. Case Thresh1ng com
nany. that the annual interest on the
balance of the purchase price was que
end If not paid for within sixty days
as nrovided by law he would forfeit, as
we'll as his essignees, all interest ana
fi+Ia in the land. The sheriff did not
serve the notice personally, because
both parties rediced outsloe Oh une
door. On December 1, 1883, entry was
made on the records of the county
clerk of the forfeiture and on January
az. 1902, it was resold to Charles IL:
Wilson to whom a new certncate OF
purchase was issued.
Cases All Similar.
The circumstances which entered
into all the cases in question were
practically similar to the above. Ihey
cite that the plaintiffs who are trying
to dispossess the present owners of the
land, secured the original certificate
of purchase executed by the state in
the early eighties by assignment.
The man who purchased the land
f7rst from the state and secured the
certificate paid one-tenth of the pur-
chase price to the county treasurer
and entered into agreement that he
would pay the balance Of the purchase
price in twenty years with interest
After receiving the certificate the pur-
chaser continued to pay for a number
of years and then ceas ed to pay and al
the expiration of a number of years
assigned whatever claim he had on the
land, turning over as he did so his
certificate to the plaintiff. In the
meantime at the beginning of 1900 the
land was declared forfeited by the
proper officers because of the failure
to keep up the payments. And II
two or three years following the LAND
was again offered for sale and sold tt
the present incumbents, the parties
who are the defendants in these schoo
land cases and whom the plaintiffs ar,
trying to dispossess. The count,
clerk had issued q new certificate o
purchase to the defendants, the pres
ent incumbents, who have maintained
the payments required and made valu
able improvements in most instances
The big boom which sent the prices o
western Kansas lands skyward offere
the incentive to the Spectator to pur
chase the first certificates of purchas
and the Spectator became the plain
tiff in this suit and last year filed sui
against the defendant claiming tina
the latter was wrongfully withholdin
possession from the plaintiff. In add
ton to this the defendant or specu
lator set up as a second cause for hi
action at law the rents and profits Q
the land.
In reply to this suit the defendant
the present incumbent on the LAND
stated that the speculator had forfeit
ed his rights to the land according t
the laws of the state.
That by leaving the land and re
manning silent when 1t was offere
for sale again and purchased by TIL
defendant and failing to object t
the defendants taking possession an
making lasting improvements, til
plaintiff is estopped from claimin
any right in the land.
A large number of suits were file
both in the state and federal courf
last spring as the result of the La
passed by the legislature in 49,
which provided that suits to secul
possession of the school lands mu
be begun IN six months after the Ell
roen,-nA Of the Lag The intent of II