Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/199/382.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 10:48:45+00:00

Document:
Mecided November 27, 1905. [199 U.S. 382, 383] Mr. W. E. Cullen for appellant.
[199 U.S. 382, 384] Messrs. George Turner, F. H. Graves, and W. G. Graves for appellees.
Suit in equity to establish title in appellant to an undivided one half of northeast quarter of section 6, township 25 north, range 38 east, Washington meridian 2, and for accounting of rents and profits, and for partition between appellant and appellees.
It was originally brought in the superior court in and for Lincoln county in the state of Washington. A demurrer was filed to the amended complaint, and a petition to remove the suit to the circuit court for the district of Washington, eastern division, on the ground that the suit involved the construction of 2291 and 2292 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, pp. 1390-1394), and of all statutes of the United States relating to homesteads. The suit was removed. In the circuit court a motion was made to remand, which was denied. The demurrer was sustained, and appellant, electing to stand upon her bill, it was decreed that she had no right, title, or interest in the land. 118 Fed. 273. The decree was affirmed by the circuit court of appeals. 122 Fed. 588.
'When William McCune entered this land he had not the legal title, but he had an immediate equitable interest and the exclusive right of possession until forfeited by failure to carry out the terms of his entry. United States v. Turner, 54 Fed. 228.
But this is begging the question. What interest arose in McCune by his entry, who could, upon his death, fulfil the conditions of settlement and proof, and to whom and for whom title would pass, depended upon the laws of the United States. Bernier v. Bernier, 147 U.S. 242 , 37 L. ed. 152, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 244. The motion to remand was rightly overruled. On the merits we think the ruling of the lower courts was also right. Hutchinson Invest. Co. v. Caldwell, 152 U.S. 65 , 38 L. ed. 356, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 504. Hoadley v. San Francisco, 94 U.S. 4 , 24 L. ed. 34, and other cases relied on by appellant, are not in point.
'Sec. 2292. In case of the death of both father and mother, leaving an infant child or children under twenty-one years of age, the right and fee shall inure to the benefit of such infant child or children.' U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, pp. 1390, 1394.
It requires an exercise of ingenuity to establish uncertainty in these provisions. They say who shall enter, and what he shall do to complete title to the right thus acquired. He may reside upon and cultivate the land, and by doing so is entitled to a patent. If he die, his widow is given the right of residence and cultivation, and 'shall be entitled to a patent, as in other cases.' He can make no devolution of the land against her. The statute which gives him a right, gives her a right. She is as much a beneficiary of the statute as he. The words of the statute are clear, and express who in turn shall be its beneficiaries. The contention of appellant reverses the order of the statute, and gives the children an interest paramount to that of the widow through the laws of the state.
The law of the state is not competent to do this. As was observed by Circuit Judge Gilbert: 'The law of the state of Washington governs the descent of lands lying within the state, but the question here is whether there had been any [199 U.S. 382, 390] descent of land.' And, against application of the state law, the learned judge cited Wilcox v. Jackson, 13 Pet. 517, 10 L. ed. 273, and Bernier v. Bernier, 147 U.S. 242 , 37 L. ed. 152, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 244. In the former it was said that whenever the question is whether title to land which had been the property of the United States has passed, that question must be resolved by the laws of the United States; but that whenever, according to those laws, the title shall have passed, then, like all other property in the state, it is subject to state legislation. In Bernier v. Bernier it was said that the object of 2291 and 2292 was 'to provide the method of completing the homestead claim and obtaining a patent therefor, and not to establish a line of descent or rules of distribution of the deceased entryman's estate.' See Hall v. Russell, 101 U.S. 503 , 25 L. ed. 829. And hence it was decided that Mrs. Donahue took the title free from any interest or right in the appellant under the laws of the state.
Against the effect of the patent conveying title to Mrs. Donahue, appellant invokes the doctrine of relation. it is admitted 'that the title to the real estate in the case at bar passed and vested according to the laws of the United States by patent.' But it is contended that, a beneficial interest having been created by the state law in McCune when the title passed out of the United States by the patent, it 'instantly dropped back in time to the inception or initiation of the equitable right of William McCune, and that the laws of the state intercepted and prevented the widow from having a complete title without first complying with the probate laws of the state.' This, however, is but another way of asserting the law of the state against the law of the United States, and imposing a limitation upon the title of the widow which 2291 of the Revised Statutes does not impose. It may be that appellant's contention has support in some expressions in the state decisions. If, however, they may be construed as going to the extent contended for, we are unable to accept them as controlling.

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