Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/139/1/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 02:50:14+00:00

Document:
Justia › US Law › US Case Law › US Supreme Court › Volume 139 › St. Paul & P. R. Co. v. Northern Pac. R. Co.
it is so well settled as to be no longer open to discussion. Schulenberg v. Harriman, 21 Wall. 44, 88 U. S. 60; Leavenworth, Lawrence &c. Railroad Co. v. United States, 92 U. S. 733; Missouri, Kansas &c. Railway Co. v. Kansas Pacific Railway Co., 97 U. S. 491; Railroad Co. v. Baldwin, 103 U. S. 426. The terms of present grant are in some cases qualified by other portions of the granting act, as in the case of Rice v. Railroad Co., 1 Black 358, but, unless qualified, they are to receive the interpretation mentioned.
It is contended that they are qualified, and restricted by the provision of the fourth section, that whenever twenty-five miles of the road are completed in a good, substantial, and workmanlike manner and the commissioners appointed to examine the same have made a report to that effect to the President, patents shall be issued "confirming to said company the right and title to said lands, situated opposite to and coterminous with said completed section of said road." This provision, it is urged, is inconsistent with the theory that a title to the lands had previously vested in the company. We do not think so. There are many reasons why patents should be issued upon the completion of each section of the road. They would not only identify the lands as coterminous with the completed section, but they would be evidence that, as to that portion of the road, the conditions of the grant had been complied with, and that it was thus freed from any liability to forfeiture for a disregard of them. They would also obviate the necessity of any further evidence of the grantee's title. As deeds of further assurance, they would thus be of great value in giving quiet and peace to the grantee's possession. There are many instances in the legislation of Congress where patents are authorized to be issued to parties in further assurance of their title, notwithstanding a previous legislative grant to them or a legislative confirmation of a previously existing claim. The previous grant or confirmation is in no respect impaired thereby, or its construction affected. See, on this point, Langdeau v. Hanes, 21 Wall. 521, and Wright v. Roseberry, 121 U. S. 488, 121 U. S. 497.
"Whereas, by an Act of Congress approved March third, eighteen hundred and fifty-seven, there was granted to the Territory of Minnesota lands to aid in the construction of a railroad from Stillwater, via St. Paul and St. Anthony, to a point between the foot of Big Stone Lake and the mouth of Sioux Wood River, with a branch, via St. Cloud and Crow Wing, to the navigable waters of the Red River of the North, the northern terminus of which was fixed by the legislature of said territory at St. Vincent, and whereas, it is now believed that the public interests require a change of location of a part of said branch road, therefore,"
"Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled that, in lien of that part of the railroad grant to Minnesota Territory by Act of Congress approved third March, eighteen hundred and fifty-seven, which extends northwesterly from the intersection of the tenth standard parallel with the fourth guide meridian, there shall be granted to the State of Minnesota the alternate sections within six-mile limits of such new branch line of route as the authorities of the state may designate, having its southwestern terminus at any point on the existing line between the Falls of St. Anthony and Crow Wing, and extending in a northeasterly direction to the waters of Lake Superior, with a right of indemnity between the fifteen-mile limits thereof, provided this resolution shall take effect from the filing in the General Land Office of the acceptance by the authorities aforesaid of such substitution, whereupon the land north of the intersection aforesaid in the grant as authorized by the said act of third March, eighteen hundred and fifty-seven, being by said acceptance disencumbered of the railroad grant, shall be dealt with as other public lands of the United States."
"Resolved by the board of directors of the St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company that the terms, conditions, and provisions of the joint resolution of the Congress of the United States approved July 12, 1862, entitled 'A joint resolution authorizing the State of Minnesota to change the line of certain branch railroads in said state, and for other purposes,' and also the terms, conditions, and provisions of the Act of the Legislature of the State of Minnesota approved March 6, 1863, entitled 'An act to authorize the St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company to construct a branch road to Lake Superior,' and also the terms, conditions, and provisions of the Act of the Legislature of the State of Minnesota approved March 4, 1864, entitled 'An act to extend the time for the construction of the branch road of the St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company,' be, and the same and each and every of them are hereby, approved, accepted, and assented to by the St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company, and the President and Secretary of this company are hereby directed to transmit a duly certified copy of this resolution to the governor of the state."
But, independently of this conclusion, we are of opinion that the exception in the act making the grant to the Northern Pacific Railroad Company was not intended to cover other grants for the construction of roads of a similar character, for this would be to embody a provision which would often be repugnant to and defeat the grant itself. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway v. Kansas Pacific Railway, 97 U. S. 491, 97 U. S. 498-499.

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