Arizona republican., 1915-01-04
LAND OFFICE
 |S REVERSED
Commissioner Clay TalIman Holds That Contention of Attorney Mandl in Dorm vs. Cook Case is Well Founded

Land Attorney A. Mandl has just received information from Land Com missioner Clay Tallman of the re- Versal of a decision of the local land office in the case of Robert F. Cook Ns. Margaret J. Born, and the allow ance of the application of Mrs. Dorns homestead entry upon q piece of land just south of the river and one hall mile east Of the Center street bridge
 On April 10, 1914, at 9 am Mrs Dorn personally filed a homestead ap- plication, together with an affidavit that she had made settlement on this land March II. 1914. Simultaneous with the filing of Mrs Dorns appli- cation, Cook filed an application to enter the same land He also sub mitted an affidavit, alleging settle ment at 914 am, on March H. 1914 with the further allegation that at said hour there was no other person or persons performing acts of settle ment on the land
 On account of the alleged simu- taneous filing of applications to enter this land, and the conflicting state ments by Mrs. Dorn and Cook, a hearing was held on May 23, 1914, both parties appearing and submitting evidence On June 9. 1914, the focal land office rendered a decision recom- mending that the application of Cook be allowed, from which action an appeal was filed by Attorney Mandl, representing Mrs. Dorn.
 In reversing the local land office, Commissioner Tallman said:
 You seem to have based your de- cision adverse to claimant. DOrn. upon the theory that she was upon the land in a tent erected thereon several days before the land was opened for settlement. remaining there about one-half day, and also upon the ground that she must have been there prior to am. the morn ing of the 11th of March, 1914, for the reason she commenced the con struction of the house precisely at 2 am.
 You state in your decision: We are therefore. of the opinion that claimant, Dorn. by performing acts of settlement prior to the date of opening and by entering upon the land on March II, 1914, prior to 2 am, forfeited any and all claim to a settlement right. and Cooks being the first qualified settler in point of time after the land was legally open ed is entitled to have his filing al lowed
 The evidence supports your state ment that she was upon the land at and immediately before am, and if that be true she could gain no right thereby, but she would lose no right by being there. She was there at am and immediately com menced the construction of a house and continued to live there and was so doing at the time of the hearing. Her improvements consist of a house 12x24 feet, two rooms, four windows and two doors, corral, well, and some clearing.
 Claimant Cook does not claim to have been upon the land until 9:14 am. March II. 1914. fourteen min utes after claimant, Dorn. had estab- lished her residence and comnfenced building her house.
 After calling attention to the case of Hanson vs Canmanche and that of Larsen vs Hanson, the commis sioner continued
 Tt, therefore, follows that Hour de- cision was erroneous You will allow the application of Dorn and reject the application of Cook, subject to his right of appeal
 You will notify the parties in in terest hereof, and in due time report your action"
 This case has been of peculiar in terest. and has been watched closely because of the unique point raised and the decision of Commissioner Tallman will have a far-reaching ef- feet. t..a 11