Little Falls herald. [volume] (Little Falls, Morrison County, Minn.) 1889-1950, 1909-12-17
TIT Dc ClSl0N
Supreme Court Affirms
Judge Taylor's Decision
IN Houston Case

=
the case of Houston VS.. the Northern
Pacific Railway company, and granted
Houston 8 demand for the return Of
his money for the REIMBURSEMENT Of
the mineral tights in the land
reserved by the company, says the st.
Cloud Journal Press,
This is one Of the Morrison county
indemnity land cases which have been
in dispute between the Northern
Pacific Railway company and the
homestead settlers tor many years. "a
Houston settled on this land some.
ten years ago, and his application to:
enter 1t under the homestead law was:
refused and rejected by the local land
officer, then at st. Cloud. by the CONF
missioner of the general land Office and.
by 6 the secretary Of the interior, for
the reason that tits part Of an odd
numbered section situate within the.
indemnity limits of the railroad land
granto and ) mad been selected by the
company as lieu land Ia% Il 55
Patent issued in favor, of the railway
company for this Housaton tract in;
March, ~ 1905. Thereafter and IN
July, 1905. Houston being lntimidated,
caioled; urged and persuaded by the
company, bought the land from them,
paid the purchase price in full, secured
their deed and had same recorded in
Morrison county. Ss%I5 s:s@.
Subsequently Houston became dis.
satisfied and brought suit IN equity
for the recovery Of his money and
for the cancellation OF the mineral
right which the company had reserved
in the land.
The case was tried at Little Falls in
March last before Judge M. D. Taylor
and the judge rendered decision
in favor of Houston and against the
company. The railroad people
appealed from Judge Taylor's decision
to the state supreme court and the case
was argued before that court on the
! 18th of November last.
There was several questions
involved IN this case, more than we
have, space to explain. But the
principal question. not heretofore
decided in the Wass case, is simple
one and easily answered, viz. Can
the railway company sell man his
own land, convert the purchase money
to their own use, and retain it with
the sanction of a court Of equity2
The supreme court says no with a
big N, and, accordingly, the railway
company will pay back to Houston the
| money extorted from him and they
will also relinqulsh the mineral rights
in his land which they attempted to
reserve for themselves. * it,.
| This case is distinguished from the
Wass case now pending before the
, United States supreme court in this
respect, that. after the land had been
patented to the company in both cases
/ the company offered to sell the land to
| the settlers at a certain price per acre
his claim any and every settler who
refused or neglected to buy upon the
cOmpany's terms. -
Houston being afraid that he would
be elected and lose his Improvements
and home, agreed to buy and did buy
his claim from the company, whereas
Wass, being Yorkshire Englishman
and therefore not easily intimidated,
! refused to buy his claim from the
company and told them to go to, etc.
All the questions involved In the
Wass case are likewise involved in the
Houston case, and the Houston case
involved the additional question above
stated. - ~ - 2:s7$: J 20 s'.5:u SS5:.sIf-t'
! It is not announced at present.
whether or not the company viii carry
the Houston case to the United States
supreme court on writ OF error and
This question will probably not BE-
determined: until q decision is an
nounced in the Wass case = ,, -
The railway company was re-
presented in this case by their general
counsel. The settler, Mr.. Houston.
was represented In the case by P. b.
! German 1=rs n ~