Mountain Home maverick. [volume] (Mountain Home, Idaho) 1906-1911, 1911-02-23
NOTIFY PROBLEMS INVOLVED IN
CASE BEFORE THE LAND
OFFICE AT BOISE
Piaintiff Proves Settlement Upon
Land Prior to Defendants Appii-
cation for script.-Grand View
Lands Involved in the Contest.

Boise February 2s.-The most
important land cases. according to
officials of the federal land ofSice.
that have come up within the past
few months, are those of Edward
P. siffert against Frank L. Houston
and a similar case of sifrert against
the Northern Pacific railroad.
In both cases the claims of sif-
fert are upheld by the decision hand
ed down by the land onice yester-
day
siffert filed protest against the Sc
lection of Houston as to the south
half Of southwest quarter Of section
2o and the selection Of the Northern
Pacific Of the north half Of the south
west quarter of section %, township
south, range east, in August.
1910. claiming that he had settled
on the land prior to the date of the
applications and claiming that he
continued to make his home there.
Houston's filing was made on June
9, 1910, while the Northern Pacific
filed on its land June 20. 1910.
II is shown in the testimony that
Siffert took possession of these lands
on June ?, 1910, and erected tent
house. He grubbed the brush from
20 acres Of land. The land was shown
to have been a portion of tract
4 previously head under an unsurveyed
desert land entry by one Larson.
Relinquishment was secured from
Larson by one Johnson on May 2S.
1899, and this relinqnishment came
into the hands of Emma NJ Blunk.
~ quote from the decision: Such
vgs the status of the land at the
time the Houston selection was filed.
The testimony shows that Emma
NJ Blunk was to be the beneficiary
of this application The relinQuish-
ment from Larson of his unsurveyed
desert land entry was secured by Cas-
per Helm through Johnson for Blunk.
Helm making payment of $500. Helm
also negotiating the purchase Of this
script for Bunk paying some $4,000
for II. He seems to have advanced
all the money, or practically all the
money that was used in connection
with the various transactions to
which Blunk seems. to have been a
party A portion of this money. IL
was testified. was repaid to him
some 500.
The register and received. in de-
Gliding the matter, finds several
questions arising One is whether or
, not Emma NJ Blunk had acquired
such a right at the time siffert made
his settlement as would entitIe her
to make desert land entry on this
land after the filing of the township
) plat
After reviewing his section Of the
( case the conclusion is reached that
, 'at the time Siffei' maze his set
, Element there vas no valid adverse
settlement right"
The next point considered s'whe-
s ther or not. II Blunk had valid, ad-
verse settlement under act of March
2S. 1908. at the time Houston filed
{ this selection. the settlement made
s by siffert would suffice to defeat this
s selection"
I And the conclusion which is reach
ed is that there is mo ground upon
q which It may be assumed that Blunk
e could so transfer a prospective pref
s erence right to Houston. as was at
tempted in this case in the face OF
settlement like that which it is
shown was made by sifert"
d In dealing with the case against
r the Northern Pacific Railway com
y pany il is stated in the decision thai
+. 'it has been stipulated in this case
i through the attorneys that the tes
# timony in the case OF Edward p. Sif
" fer against Frank L. Houston shall
z be used as testimony in these pro
n ceedings. It therefore follows tha
1t since the material facts are thu
" same. our decision in this case mus
r. follow that rendered in the othe
ie and we Therefore hold that the Nor
N thern Pacific selection should be can