Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Wass/Opinion of the Court

In brief, the facts of this case are as follows: While a filed selection by the St. Paul & Northern Pacific Railway Company of land within the indemnity limits of a railroad grant was awaiting the action of the Secretary of the Interior, Fred Wass, in April, 1899, entered upon the land with the intention of making it a homestead, and continued in possession, making improvements, Wass presented to the land office an application to enter the tract under the homestead laws. The register and receiver filed his application, but on the same day rejected it, and refused to receive the fees tendered, basing such refusal and rejection upon the ground that the lands filed for were embraced in the then pending selection. On appeal, the action of the local land office was affirmed by the Commissioner of the General Land Office and by the Secretary of the Interior, respectively. The selection was subsequently approved and a patent for the lands was issued by the governor of Minnesota, all rights under which became vested in the Northern Pacific Railway Company, the plaintiff in error. That company then commenced this action against Wass and his wife in a court of the state of Minnesota to recover possession of the land and damages for the detention. In the answer, among other things, affirmative relief was prayed against the railway company for the conveyance of the legal title to Wass. A demurrer to the answer was overruled upon the authority of the decision in Sjoli v. Dreschel, 199 U.S. 564, 50 L. ed. 311, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 154, and a decree was entered in favor of Wass, granting the relief prayed by him. This decree was affirmed by the supreme court of Minnesota upon the authority of the Sjoli Case as well as the decision of the circuit court of appeals in Hoyt v. Weyerhaeuser, 88 C. C. A. 404, 161 Fed. 324. The opinion just announced, reviewing the action of the circuit court of appeals in the Hoyt Case, and reversing the decree entered in that case, conclusively establishes that error was committed by the court below, and therefore requires a reversal. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Minnesota is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Mr. Justice Harlan, with whom concurred Mr. Justice Day, dissenting: