Little Falls herald. [volume] (Little Falls, Morrison County, Minn.) 1889-1950, 1912-03-29
RULING ON STAT LAND.

Attorney General Places
II Limit Of $50 Acres
For One Person
!. A ruling of the attorney general
under date of March 18th relative to
The amount OF state land any one
person is allo wed to purchaser nder tho
provision Of the laws of 1905 makes it
clear that hence forth but $50 acres of
state land can be purchased by one
person. Heretofore parties have pur-
chased as much of the state land as
they cared to invest in. T
: As there is still about II, 900 acres of |
state land in this county we will run |
copy of letter which is addressed to |
the state auditor which IS as follows:
Deer Sir:
Your favor Of February ID to this
has been handed to me for |
reply. - ..~
You ask q number Of questions per-
tanning to the construction of section 5 |
Of chapter 2yY, q. L. 1905, being an
act relating to the sale of lands
granted to the state by tho congress of
the United States. Said section pro.
vides:
mot more than 800 acres OF such
land shall be sold or contracted to be
sold to any one purchaser.
You ask:
First-Does this Limitation OF 800
acres (a) apply to single sale only,
10y to all sales in all counties in any
one year. (c) or to all time without re-
gard to the year or the county?
It IS my opinion that no person could
become legally the owner OF purchase
made from the state of Minnesota of
more than $50 ares Of land during the
life time of such purchaser, ana that
if the sale was made to corporation,
that corporation during Its legal ex-
lstence could not purchase more than
$40 acres Of such land. The object of
the statute apparently was to prevent a
single person or a corporation from &C.
quir1ng large areas of the state land
and was intended to keep distributed
among the people of the state, the
lands of the state. Hence, the statute
would be meaningless If it only ap.
piled to sales made in one county or
sales made in any one year. The stat
ute is somewhat analogous in its
effect to the federal homestead act
which only permits citizen OF the
United States to take and receive from
the United States one homestead dur
ing his life time. However, as here
after stated, such would only be true
from and after April -, 1905, the date
Of the passage of said act.
Second-Can a purchaser who has
bought 320 acres for himself at sale,
|act as the agent and purchase land for
others at the same sale?,
It is my opinion that there is no
legal objection to person who has
purchased 800 acres of land for him
self, acting as an agent for others.
Said section simply d1squalihes such
la person from purchasing more land
for himself, but is not applicable
where such person acts as an agent.
It, however, would be proper for your
department to compel such agent who
has exhausted his own right to pur-
chase, to show his authority to act as
agent, and see no objection IN COM
pelline the principal to make an
affidavit IN which he shall state in SUBJ
stance that he is purchasing the land
actually for himself through such
agent.
Thlrd-Does this law prohibit a per-
son who has purchased SEQ acres in his
own name, from acquiring additional
state land by taking assignments of
certi 6cates of land sold to other pur-
chasersy
This question is answered in the
negative. The case Of G1lem vs.. board
of commissioners. ~ Pac. lore. 10, Is
in point. The statutes of Oregon
limited the quantity of university land
which one person could legally pur-
chase to SEQ acres. It appeared that
one ''k' had purchased 800 acres of
such land and later taken an assign
ment of 100 acres OF such land from
"a and then applied to the state for
a deed to the said 100 acres. The court
held that ''A' was entitled to a deed
and that the statute applied only to
sales maize by the state, and did not
apply to purchases made by assign
ment of outstanding state land certiti-
c ties.
Fourth-lf person disposes of lana
that had been purchased from the
state, and is not the owner Of any
state land, can he purchase another
tract of not to exceed 800 acres?
This question is answered IN the
negative, the same being more fully
explained In my answer to the first
question asked by you.
Fifth-tf person owned 320 acres or
mere of state land at the time of the
passage of this limitation, would he be
prohibited from purchasing another
tract OF $50 acres?
It is my opinion that the statute is
not retroactive in effect. and that the
statute applies only to conditions
created after the passage of the act.
and that it . purchaser had been the
orvner Of state land prior to, the pass
age of the act, that such action no way
would disquallfy him from purchasing
state land from ana after the passage
Of the act in question.
trust that I have sufficiently an