Gustin v. Commissioner of State Land Office

85 N.W. 730, 126 Mich. 269, 1901 Mich. LEXIS 721
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedApril 16, 1901
StatusPublished

This text of 85 N.W. 730 (Gustin v. Commissioner of State Land Office) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gustin v. Commissioner of State Land Office, 85 N.W. 730, 126 Mich. 269, 1901 Mich. LEXIS 721 (Mich. 1901).

Opinion

Moore, J.

The relator filed his petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent to convey to him upwards of 1,000 acres of what is known as “State swamp land,” for which he had tendered the respondent $1.25 an acre. The respondent has made answer to the petition. The material parts of the answer are as follows:

“That, as to the allegation contained in paragraph 4 of said petition, this respondent says that, by reason of the fact that said lands were not subject to private sale at the time of said relator’s application therefor, he refused to issue to said relator a certificate of purchase in accordance with his said application; and this respondent denies that said relator was entitled to a certificate of purchase, which, upon presentation to the secretary of state, would entitle him to a patent for said lands.
“This respondent, further answering, and showing cause why he should not be compelled to accept the said application of relator, and to issue a certificate for the purchase of said lands pursuant thereto says that Act No. 169 of the Public Acts of 1897, being an act to provide for the appropriation of five thousand acres of State swamp land for the purpose of cleaning out Shiawassee river in the county of Saginaw, authorized and empowered the board of control of State swamp lands of this State to appropriate five thousand acres of State swamp lands in the Lower Peninsula for the purpose mentioned in the title of said act; that a meeting of the board of control of State swamp lands for the purpose of considering the provisions of said act was held on the 1st day of July, A. D. 1897, at which time this respondent was chairman of the board of control of State swamp lands in this State, and was authorized by said board to make an examination of said proposed improvement provided for by said act; that prior to the next meeting of said board of control, which was held on the 29th day of July, 1897, this respondent, [271]*271by virtue of the power and authority in him vested, as commissioner of the State land office, over the public lands of the State, reserved and withdrew from market, for the purpose of said Act No. 169, five thousand acres of State swamp land, of which the one thousand and forty acres described in relator’s petition was a part, and authorized and directed the chief clerk of the land commissioner’s office, who was also clerk of the board of control of State swamp lands in this State, to designate in writing upon the sales plats in the office of the commissioner of the State land office that said lands were reserved and withdrawn from market for the purposes of said Act No. 169, and that all of the lands described in relator’s petition were so withdrawn from market and reserved for the purposes of said Act No. 169, together with other lands,' — ■ in all, five thousand acres, — all- of which was done with “the knowledge and approval of the several members of said board.
“This respondent, further answering, says that at the meeting of the board of control of State swamp lands of “this State held on the 29th day of July, 1897, the said chief clerk of the land commissioner’s office, who was also clerk of said board of control, as directed by this respondent, reported to said board that the lands described in relator’s petition, together with other lands, in all amounting to five thousand acres, had been withdrawn from market and reserved pending further action of said board relative to the provisions of said Act No. 169; that a copy of the official record of the minutes of the several meetings of said board of control relative to the provisions of said Act No. 169 is attached to and made a part of this answer, and marked ‘Exhibit A.’
“This respondent, further answering, says that, under and by virtue of the power and authority in him vested by the laws of this State with respect to the public lands of this State, the lands described in relator’s petition were by him withdrawn from market, and that said lands, by virtue of such withdrawal,-were not subject to private sale until again restored to market in accordance with the requirements and provisions of Act No. 21 of the Public Acts of 1873, being sections 1311 and 1314, inclusive, of the Compiled Laws of 1897.
“This respondent, further answering, says that said lands were actually withdrawn from market by this respondent, which fact was recorded upon the sales plats [272]*272of the office of the commissioner of the State land office, and have been so treated and held in reserve for a period of over three years, during which period the value of said lands has greatly increased, and that they are now worth in the open market much more than one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre; that many applications have been made to purchase said lands prior to the said application of relator during the time they were so withheld from market, and therefore they should only be restored to market in accordance with the provisions of the statute expressly relating thereto; that to restore said lands to market at private sale at one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre would result in great loss to the people of the State of Michigan.”

The exhibits attached to the answer show that at a meeting of the board of control of State swamp lands held July 1, 1897, among other things the following appears upon the minutes:

“Senate bill No. 370, authorizing the appropriation of 5,000 acres of State swamp land for the improvement of the Shiawassee river in Saginaw county, was read by the secretary. Hon. B. Colvin, Judge Wilber, and Geo. B. Brooks, being present, exhibited a 'map of the territory obstructed, and explained the situation.”

The minutes of a meeting held July 29th contain the following:

“ Commissioner French reported that he had attempted to examine the territory of the proposed improvements of the Shiawassee river, and visited Saginaw on July 7th for that purpose, but that, on account of the extreme hot weather prevailing at that time, postponed the examination until some more favorable time in the future, and expressed the opinion that, unless the general government made certain proposed improvements below where the State improvement was proposed, it would be useless to carry out the provisions of the act authorizing such improvement. * * * The secretary reported that a list of lands selected for the payment of the Shiawassee-river improvement had been submitted, and the lands, reserved pending further action by the board.”

At a meeting of the board held October 12, 1898, the following appeared: -

[273]*273“Commissioner French made report of his examination of the territory to be affected by the proposed improvement of Shiawassee river, as follows:
“ ‘Examined river from vicinity of St. Charles downstream, and found it filled with driftwood, which in high water so obstructs the flow of water as to cause the stream to overflow its banks and cover a large territory of good land with water, to its great detriment. This could be overcome by removing the driftwood from the channel, thereby greatly benefiting the section now annually overflowed.’
“Commissioner French recommended the appropriation as authorized. Mr. Steel moved that the appropriation of 5,000 acres of swamp land authorized by the act be made. Mr. Gardner seconded this motion, which then prevailed. Moved by Mr. Steel, seconded by Mr.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People ex rel. Heather v. Pritchard
17 Mich. 260 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1868)
Wait v. Commissioner of the State Land-Office
49 N.W. 600 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1891)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
85 N.W. 730, 126 Mich. 269, 1901 Mich. LEXIS 721, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gustin-v-commissioner-of-state-land-office-mich-1901.