Court Opinion

ID: 9417594
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 20:27:06.850188+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:46.749412
License: Public Domain

Mb. Justice Field,
(with whom concurred Mb. Justice Gray,) dissenting.
In these cases I dissent from the judgment of the court equally as' from that in the cases just decided. It is now held that not only the lands within the granted' limits of the Atlantic and Pacific Eailroad Company passed to that company beyond the power of Congress to assign any portion of them for the construction of the Southern Pacific Company, although no work was done by . the former corporation, and the grant to it was forfeited, but the indemnity lands' also. The objections urged to the judgment in the other cases just decided possess greater force in these cases, for indemnity lands do not vest in any company until they are selected. Even if the Atlantic and Pacific Eailroad Company had built the road, it would have had ho indemnity lands until selection was made; much less can it be held that .title vested in that company before any attempt was made.to exhaust the lands: within the granted limits.
I think the judgment in these cases should also be affirmed, and I am authorized to state that. Mb. Justice Gbay concurs with me in this dissent.