The Idaho Republican. [volume] (Blackfoot, Idaho) 1904-1932, 1912-02-16
Homestead

Homestead
According to published department.
al instruction of August 7, 1911, (40
L. D., 1850, the contestant who es-
tablished his residence and also filed
his contest prior to September "a,
1910, and maintained his residence,
may receive credit for the time he
resided upon the land before the can
collation. of entry, which he contest
ed.
The sickness of an entryman may
be accepted as sufficient excuse for
occasional absences, not unduly pro-
longed.
Citizenship of the United States is
made an absolute prerequisite to the
requirement of title to the lands un-
der the homestead law and satisfac-
tory evidence thereof must be shown.
-:
Purchase of land after final receipt
and prior to patent gives an equity
only. Such person is not bona fide
purchaser within the meaning of the
Presumption law and protected by the
provisions of that act against further
inquiry by the land department as
to acts of enjoyment. Citing Hawly
vs.. Diller OTIS U. S., 476).
When purchase was made in good
faith, and the face of the record ap-
peared regular and valid in all re-
spects, the department will consider
the equitable rights of such purchas-
err.
When leave of absence is granted
homesteader, charge of abandon
ment will not lie against the entry
until the expiration of months after
the time for which leave of absence
was granted.
Desert Lands
Entry of lands within the territory
designated in the Kincaid act, which
were, at date of entry, embraced in
reclamation withdrawal as irrigible
lands, which limited the right of en-
try to 16O acres, the entryman does
not thereby exhaust his right under
said act, but upon the revocation of
the withdrawal would be entitled to
enlarge his entry for contiguous
lands to the full area allowed by
law. Affirming unreported case of
Earle F. Dunning, decided February
21, 1911.
The rule for determining the desert
character of lands is substantially as
follows. Lands that one year with
another for series of years will not
without irrigation produce reasonably
remunerative crops are desert within
the meaning of the law. {
A showing that crops, even remu-
nerative ones, have grown on lands t
for few seasons, under unusual con- t
ditions as to rainfall, does not con- {
clusively prove their non-desert char
acter. Citing case of Peterson VS..
Parkinson CT L. D., 1929.
In view of the act of June 23, u
1910, an entry within reclamation t
project may be assigned in whole or t
in part, Subject to the limitations, a
charges, terms and conditions of the r
reclamation act" Public land can v
be disposed of only according to the d
plat of survey, in parcels not smaller t
than the smallest legal subdivision, r.
and section 22S9, R. S., requires
homestead entries to be made Gin
conformity to the legal subdivision n
Of the public lands" d
Inasmuch as the reclamation act s
limits the right of entry to one farm p
unit, an assignee must present a p
showing that he has not acquired IT, Il
lie to and is not claiming any other "
'arm unit or entry under the recla- G.
nation act. Citing case of Sarah S. n
Long (39 L. D., 300. n
- II
Although irrigation is not required D
subsequent to final proof, what has e
aiken place and the acts of the par Il
les with respect to irrigation, subse- ii
luent to such final proof, may be
considered as some evidence of the
of the improvements and g
good faith in the matter. G
- In
Final Proof a
When Communication proof is reject IL
I'd by the commissioner upon only Iii
me ground-such as lack of cult fl
case will not necessarily VI
,e closed, but the entry may be held d
n a NJ cuhioct IN fufuro oopo nj Ia MO -