Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/247/243.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 20:52:04+00:00

Document:
[247 U.S. 243, 244] Messrs. Charles R. Pierce, of Washington, D. C., and Lyndon A. Smith and Clifford L. Hilton, both of St. Paul, Minn., for complainant.
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Kearful, for defendants.
'1. The court is without jurisdiction to entertain this suit because it is in substance and effect against the United States, which has not consented to be sued or waived its immunity from suit.
'2. There is a defect of parties defendant which cannot be cured without depriving the court of jurisdiction.
'3. The relief prayed for would be an invasion of the lawful jurisdiction of the defendants as officers of the Land Department.
From the allegations of the bill it appears that the state claims title to the lands under Act of August 3, 1892, c. 362, 27 Stat. 347.1 [247 U.S. 243, 245] The Immigration Land Company claims title under section 5 of the Act of March 3, 1887, c. 376, 24 Stat. 556,2 relat- [247 U.S. 243, 246] ing to the adjustment of land grants to railroad companies.
The last-named statute provides that where the railroad company shall have sold to citizens of the United States as a part of its grant lands not conveyed to or for the use of the company, said lands being the numbered sections prescribed in the grant, and being coterminous with the constructive parts of the road, and where the lands so sold are for any reason excepted from the operation of the grant, it shall be lawful for a bona fide purchaser thereof from said company, to make payment to the United States for the lands at the ordinary government price for like lands, and thereupon patents shall issue to the bona fide purchaser, his heirs or assigns.
Under this act, on February 9, 1907, the Land Company made application in the Land Department to purchase the land, claiming to be the assignee of a bona fide purchaser of the lands from the railroad company. The state of Minnesota protested against the issuance of a patent to the Immigration Land Company, and claimed the land under the act of August 3, 1892, under which undisposed-of lands of the United States, situated in certain sections and townships, were granted to the state for a public park. The act of 1892 also provides that it shall not in any manner interfere with, supersede, suspend, modify or annul the vested right of any person, company, or corporation in respect to any of the land existing at the date of the passage of the act.
'These tracts of land are within the second indemnity limits of the grant to the Northern Pacific Railroad (now Railway) Company, under act of July 2, 1864 (13 Stat. 365), as amended by joint resolution of May 31, 1870 (16 Stat. 378). On October 15, 1883, said railway company selected all of the above described tracts of land per list No. 12, Crookston rearranged list No. 12, filed April 19, 1893. he bases given in support of the selections covered by such rearranged list were lands claimed to have been excepted from the company's grant of July 2, 1864, supra, by reason of the reservation subsisting at the date thereof on account of the grant made by the act of May 5, 1864 (13 Stat. 64), to aid in the construction of the Lake Superior & Mississippi Railroad.
'Said list of selections No. 12 was canceled as to these and other tracts of land by letter 'F' of March 20, 1907, upon authority of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of the Northern Lumber Co. v. O'Brien, 204 U.S. 190 , 27 Sup. Ct. 249, but the cancellation was suspended by the order of the Secretary of the Interior on April 1, 1907, and remained in that status until October 30, 1909, when said list of selections No. 12 was canceled as to these and other tracts of land.
'The attorneys on behalf of the state of Minnesota [247 U.S. 243, 248] contend that the lands herein involved, which are situated within the limits of the Itasca State Park, were granted to the state by act of August 3, 1892 (27 Stat. 347), and it is urged on the part of the state that the grant took effect immediately, the land being 'undisposed of' on that date, and that the claim asserted by the Immigration Land Company does not have the dignity of the 'vested right,' protected in section 2 of said act.
After an opinion, in which the issues were considered, the Commissioner reached the conclusion.
'Accordingly, it is held that under section 5 of the act of March 3, 1887, the rights of the Immigration Land Company under the facts and laws above cited are superior to the claim of the state under the act of August 3, 1892, that cash entry 05008 by said Immigration Land Company should remain intact.
The decision of the Commissioner of the General Land Office was affirmed by the Secretary of the Interior, and [247 U.S. 243, 249] a rehearing denied. State of Minnesota v. Immigration Land Co., 46 Land Dec. 14.
The purpose of the bill filed in this case is to quiet title to the lands in controversy by a decree in favor of the state of Minnesota notwithstanding the decision of the Secretary of the Interior, and to enjoin that officer from issuing patents for the lands to the Immigration Land Company.
We are of opinion that the state has mistaken its remedy, and if it be true that the secretary has made a mistake in overruling the contention of the state that the title passed to it under the act of August 3, 1892, relief must be sought in the courts after the issuance f patent.
The grant to the state of August 3, 1892, was of all undisposed-of lands in certain townships, and section 2 specifically provided that it should not interfere with, supersede, suspend, modify or annul the vested rights of any person, company, or corporation in respect to any of said lands existing at the date of the passage of the act. The act of March 3, 1887, permitting bona fide purchasers of certain lands, in the manner which we have stated, to make payment and acquire title to the lands excepted from the operation of the railroad grant, was then in full force. A part of these lands had been purchased before the act granting them to the state, by the Immigration Land Company, and the Secretary of the Interior held that the title thus acquired was superior to that of the state, and patents were about to be issued, in accordance with the decision of the Secretary, to such bona fide purchaser. This decision is not of an arbitrary character, and was made upon full hearing before the department of the government intrusted with the administration of the public land laws, and the patents were still unissued when this suit was brought.
This is not a case where the title had passed absolutely in favor of the claimant, as was the fact in Lane v. Watts, [247 U.S. 243, 250] 234 U.S. 525 , 34 Sup. Ct. 965; Id., 235 U.S. 17 , 35 Sup. Ct. 3. It is a case where the grant was in terms of 'undisposed-of lands,' and subject to the vested rights of others. As against those holding such lands the title was not intended to pass.
The act of 1887, under which the Immigration Land Company claims title, specifically provides that patents shall be issued for lands to which the purchaser is entitled. The patents not having issued, the lands in controversy were still in course of administration in that department of the government which, until patent issues, has exclusive control of proceedings to acquire the title.
As we have said, the remedy must be sought in the courts after the issuance of patent. Under such circumstances as are here disclosed this court has uniformly so held. Litchfield v. The Register et al., 9 Wall. 575, 577; Michigan Land & Lumber Co. v. Rust, 168 U.S. 589, 592 , 593 S., 18 Sup. Ct. 208; Brown v. Hitchcock, 173 U.S. 473 , 19 Sup. Ct. 485; Kirwan v. Murphy, 189 U.S. 35 , 23 Sup. Ct. 599; Lane v. Mickadiet, 241 U.S. 201, 208 , 209 S., 36 Sup. Ct. 599.
It follows that the bill of the state must be dismissed, and it is so ordered.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.