The Colfax chronicle. [volume] (Colfax, Grant Parish, La.) 1877-1981, 1911-07-01

quished all of his rights to the
N. O. Pacific Railway Co. Fol
lowing this some of the timber
was cut and manufactured by
the Dixie Lumber Co., operated
by C. w. Barron & Son. From
testimony in the record it APP
pears that Jas. A. O'Shee acted
as agent for the Goulds, and that
the REIMBURSEMENT of Pollard
was under condition that the
Goulds deed to him the land, re-
serving the timber. Pollard af-
terward asserted his homestead
right, claiming the relinquish-
ment was secured by misrepre-
sentation, and that the Goulds
had forfeited all rights by failing
to give him title to the land.
Pollard then went to work to
cut and sell the timber to the
Hart & Adams Lumber Co., and
in this he was enjoined by the
Goulds. This injunction suit was
dissolved by Judge Blackman in
Pollard's favor, and the matter
was taken to the Supreme Court
on appeal, which has sustained
Judge Blackman's decision.
JUDGE MoNRoE's DECISION.
The decision of Judge Monroe
confirms the rights of the set
tiers, but he was unable to order
patents issued to them. The syl-
labus of the opinion which was
given in the case of Geo. Gould
of the Texas & Pacific road and
others against E. w. Pollard and
others, is as follows:
1. The rights of an actual set
tier on land within the place linn
its of the grant made to the New
Orleans Pacific Railway Compa-
ny, by the act of Congress of
February 8, 1887, as between
such settler and the company,
are not controlled or affected by
the jurisprudence predicated up
on the general laws regulating
the acquisition of presumption
and homestead rights with re-
spect to public lands; for, those
laws require, not only actual set
Element on the land sought to be
acquired, but (save where it may
be impossible or where the appli-
cation is improperly denied) the
placing on record by the settler
in the land Office of a declaration
of his purpose to acquire, or of
his application for, such land,
which must be followed by a
compliance with other conditions;
whereas, under the act of 1897,
all at date of the definite location
of the line of the grantees road,
and still remaining in their pos
session, or in the possession of
their heirs or assigns, were, in
terms, excepted from the grant;
so that the title not being con-
veyed to such grantee, it can be
a matter of no concern to it or
to those claiming under it, wheth-
er the settler had placed his dec
laration or application of record,
or had not done so, or whether
he had afterward abandoned his
purpose to acquire the land.
2. The facts that after the
grant to the New Orleans Pacific
Railway Company, as contained
| in the act of February 8, 1887,
after the definite location of the
line of the road, and, after a de-
cision, by the commissioner of
the General Land Office, adverse
to the company, of a contest be-
tween it and defendant, as an &C.
tual settler, purporting to relin-
quish his rights in favor of the
company; and his application for
the land in controversy for a
homestead was, thereupon, re-
jected by the Secretary of the
interior. could not operate to vest
the title of such land in said COM
pany. or to put the company in
defendants place, as an eligible
applicant for a homestead. since
the title remained in the govern.
ment and the corporation had ne
capacity to acquire a homestead.
Ty-1 H. -