Mr. Justice Day,
after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.
The original grant of - May, 1856, was
in prcesenti.
The title passed from the tlnited States arid vested in the State of Iowa on October 13, 1856, when the map of definite location was lodged in the General Land Office, and the right of the company then attached.
Iowa Falls Land Company
v.
Griffy,
143 U. S. 32.
Under the decisions made by this court in
Desert Salt Company
v.
Tarpey,
142 U. S. 241, and
Toltec Ranch Company
v.
Cook,
191 U. S. 532, notwithstanding the patent, had not been issued, the railway company, -grantor of the plaintiff in error, haying succeeded to the right and title of the original company and complied with all the terms and conditions of the grant, as' required in the legislation!, of Congress and the acts of the Iowa legislature after the acceptance of the grant by the State, was in'a position and clothed, with the requisite title in' order to transmit the-samé to another who might have recovered possession of the. lands,- and it could itself have, brought an action in ejectment' to oust one' holding adverse -possession thereof, and being clothed with, these rights was in such position that the'' Statute of Limitations would run against it in favor of one who occupied the premises by adverse possession under color of 'title. This was distinctly decided in the
Toltec Ranch Company case,
wherein it was held that the Stat
ute of, Limitations would run against the railroad company, thus situated toward the lands,/although the" patent had not issued.,
It is sought to withdraw this case from the application of the doctrine of
Salt Co.
v.
Tarpey,
and
Toltec Ranch Company
v.
Cook
. It is argued- that § 4 of the act of May, 1856, provided-that if the roads were not completed in ten years the unsold lands should revert to the United States; that on March 10, 1868, the Stalte.of Iowa.resumed the- grant of lands as-made to the original grantees - that by act 'of June 2, 1864, Congress provided in section 8:
“
That no lands hereby grafted shall be certified to either of said companies until- the Governor of' the State of Iowa shall certify to. the Secretary of the Interior that the. said company has completed, ready for the rolling stock, within one year from the first :day of July néxt, a section of not less than twenty miles, from the present -terminus of the completed portion of said railroad, and in each year thereafter an additional section of' twenty miles,; but the number" of sections per'mile'originally authorized shall-be certified to each company, upon proof, as- aforesaid, of the completion of the additional, sections of the road as aforesaid; and upon the failure of either company to-complete either section 'as aforesaid, to be .annually built, the- portion of the land rémainiñg uncerti-fied shall, become subject to the-control, and' disposition-of. the legislature-of the State of Ipwa, to aid in the completion of such road.” .
And, ft is argued, that the effect of this section was to hold the legal title- until the- railways wére built and completed, as-therein specified, and that the Iowa Falls and Sioux-City .Railroad Company never took the -legal title to the lands in' controversy' until certified- under- section 8, of the act of 1864, which, it is alleged, was 'not until, January 20,. 1903, followed by .the-Governor’s patent , of February 2, 1903.
But when. the. grant is
in preesenti,
and-nothing remains to be done for the administration of the grant in the Land Department, and the conditions of the grant have been complied
with and the grant fully earned, as in this case, notwithstanding .the want of final certification and the issue of. the patent, the railroad company had such title as would enable it to maintain ejectment against one wrongfully on the lands, and title by prescription would run against it in favor of one in adverse possession under color of title.
Salt Co.
v.
Tarpey,
and
Toltec Ranch Co.
v.
Cook, supra.
Applying and giving weight to the. decisions thus recently rendered in this court, we think the debatable proposition in the case concerns no.t the title of the railway company, or its right to have maintained an action to recover the premises, but involves the right of Carraher, and the defendant in error as his successor, to claim the title to the premises by adverse possession.
We think the record discloses that for more than ten years-required by the Iowa statute to- ripen such title, Carraher was in possession of the premises. He had planted a large number of trees; caused the lands to he cultivated; had raised crops; had rented . the lands to others, and was understood to be claiming the ownership. The answer of plaintiff in error to this claim of title is that Carraher was not in possession of the premises claiming title in good faith.
• The record shows that in 1883, by an entry under the Timber Culture Act, Carraher claimed this forty acre tract. As we have- seen in 'the statement preceding this opinion, his application was' rejected by the Register of the General' Land Office, whose decision was affirmed by the Commissioner and ultimately by the Secretary of the Interior. Pending his appeal, Carraher made a second application for the lands to the Register of the. Land Office, and a receiver’s receipt was issued to -him. This receiver’s receipt was dated May 31, 1888, and 'is as follows:
“Receiver’s Receipt No.-.607. Application No. 607.
“ Receiver’s Office, Des Moines, Iowa, May 31st, 1888.
“Received of John Carraher the sum of Nine Dollars-
•.cents, being the amount of fee and compensation of Registér and Receiver for the entry-of Northeast-of N. E.- quarter of Section one, in township 89 of range 46,. under the first section of the" act of Congress approved June 14th, 1878, entitled 'An. act to amend an act entitled an act to encourage-the growth of timber on the Western Prairies.’
“
$9;00. , . - M. V. McHenry,
Receiver-.
“
Endorsed:* State • of Iowa, Woodbury County,' Filed for record-.this 9th-day'of Dec.,- 1891, at 2 o’clock p. m., and re-forded in Book 40 Larids, page 162, C. 'A. DeMun, Recorder. P. Shóntz,' Deputy.’-’; •
It was enclosed to Carraher in a letter, of which the following •is a-copy:..
. “Mr. John Carraher.-. • Sioux City; Iowa, June 2, 1888.
“My Dear Sir: I have the pleasure "of handing-you herewith ■your, timber culture entry Receiver’s receipt No. 607 for N. E.-.J of N. E. 'i, 1, 89, 46.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Mr. Justice Day,
after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.
The original grant of - May, 1856, was
in prcesenti.
The title passed from the tlnited States arid vested in the State of Iowa on October 13, 1856, when the map of definite location was lodged in the General Land Office, and the right of the company then attached.
Iowa Falls Land Company
v.
Griffy,
143 U. S. 32.
Under the decisions made by this court in
Desert Salt Company
v.
Tarpey,
142 U. S. 241, and
Toltec Ranch Company
v.
Cook,
191 U. S. 532, notwithstanding the patent, had not been issued, the railway company, -grantor of the plaintiff in error, haying succeeded to the right and title of the original company and complied with all the terms and conditions of the grant, as' required in the legislation!, of Congress and the acts of the Iowa legislature after the acceptance of the grant by the State, was in'a position and clothed, with the requisite title in' order to transmit the-samé to another who might have recovered possession of the. lands,- and it could itself have, brought an action in ejectment' to oust one' holding adverse -possession thereof, and being clothed with, these rights was in such position that the'' Statute of Limitations would run against it in favor of one who occupied the premises by adverse possession under color of 'title. This was distinctly decided in the
Toltec Ranch Company case,
wherein it was held that the Stat
ute of, Limitations would run against the railroad company, thus situated toward the lands,/although the" patent had not issued.,
It is sought to withdraw this case from the application of the doctrine of
Salt Co.
v.
Tarpey,
and
Toltec Ranch Company
v.
Cook
. It is argued- that § 4 of the act of May, 1856, provided-that if the roads were not completed in ten years the unsold lands should revert to the United States; that on March 10, 1868, the Stalte.of Iowa.resumed the- grant of lands as-made to the original grantees - that by act 'of June 2, 1864, Congress provided in section 8:
“
That no lands hereby grafted shall be certified to either of said companies until- the Governor of' the State of Iowa shall certify to. the Secretary of the Interior that the. said company has completed, ready for the rolling stock, within one year from the first :day of July néxt, a section of not less than twenty miles, from the present -terminus of the completed portion of said railroad, and in each year thereafter an additional section of' twenty miles,; but the number" of sections per'mile'originally authorized shall-be certified to each company, upon proof, as- aforesaid, of the completion of the additional, sections of the road as aforesaid; and upon the failure of either company to-complete either section 'as aforesaid, to be .annually built, the- portion of the land rémainiñg uncerti-fied shall, become subject to the-control, and' disposition-of. the legislature-of the State of Ipwa, to aid in the completion of such road.” .
And, ft is argued, that the effect of this section was to hold the legal title- until the- railways wére built and completed, as-therein specified, and that the Iowa Falls and Sioux-City .Railroad Company never took the -legal title to the lands in' controversy' until certified- under- section 8, of the act of 1864, which, it is alleged, was 'not until, January 20,. 1903, followed by .the-Governor’s patent , of February 2, 1903.
But when. the. grant is
in preesenti,
and-nothing remains to be done for the administration of the grant in the Land Department, and the conditions of the grant have been complied
with and the grant fully earned, as in this case, notwithstanding .the want of final certification and the issue of. the patent, the railroad company had such title as would enable it to maintain ejectment against one wrongfully on the lands, and title by prescription would run against it in favor of one in adverse possession under color of title.
Salt Co.
v.
Tarpey,
and
Toltec Ranch Co.
v.
Cook, supra.
Applying and giving weight to the. decisions thus recently rendered in this court, we think the debatable proposition in the case concerns no.t the title of the railway company, or its right to have maintained an action to recover the premises, but involves the right of Carraher, and the defendant in error as his successor, to claim the title to the premises by adverse possession.
We think the record discloses that for more than ten years-required by the Iowa statute to- ripen such title, Carraher was in possession of the premises. He had planted a large number of trees; caused the lands to he cultivated; had raised crops; had rented . the lands to others, and was understood to be claiming the ownership. The answer of plaintiff in error to this claim of title is that Carraher was not in possession of the premises claiming title in good faith.
• The record shows that in 1883, by an entry under the Timber Culture Act, Carraher claimed this forty acre tract. As we have- seen in 'the statement preceding this opinion, his application was' rejected by the Register of the General' Land Office, whose decision was affirmed by the Commissioner and ultimately by the Secretary of the Interior. Pending his appeal, Carraher made a second application for the lands to the Register of the. Land Office, and a receiver’s receipt was issued to -him. This receiver’s receipt was dated May 31, 1888, and 'is as follows:
“Receiver’s Receipt No.-.607. Application No. 607.
“ Receiver’s Office, Des Moines, Iowa, May 31st, 1888.
“Received of John Carraher the sum of Nine Dollars-
•.cents, being the amount of fee and compensation of Registér and Receiver for the entry-of Northeast-of N. E.- quarter of Section one, in township 89 of range 46,. under the first section of the" act of Congress approved June 14th, 1878, entitled 'An. act to amend an act entitled an act to encourage-the growth of timber on the Western Prairies.’
“
$9;00. , . - M. V. McHenry,
Receiver-.
“
Endorsed:* State • of Iowa, Woodbury County,' Filed for record-.this 9th-day'of Dec.,- 1891, at 2 o’clock p. m., and re-forded in Book 40 Larids, page 162, C. 'A. DeMun, Recorder. P. Shóntz,' Deputy.’-’; •
It was enclosed to Carraher in a letter, of which the following •is a-copy:..
. “Mr. John Carraher.-. • Sioux City; Iowa, June 2, 1888.
“My Dear Sir: I have the pleasure "of handing-you herewith ■your, timber culture entry Receiver’s receipt No. 607 for N. E.-.J of N. E. 'i, 1, 89, 46. • , -
“ Respectfully, ' Geo.. W. Wakefield:
“ P. S. You can take possession and proceed to comply with the timber culture laws.” .
•’ After this receiver’s. receipt and. letter, Carraher went- into possession in the manner we have already, stated and held -it until .1.901, when, shortly "before his death,- hé conveyed the premises to the defendant" in error- The contention-is ..that this possession could not have been' in good faith with, any expectation of obtaining. title from the Government at .the conclusion of the .eight years required'by -law in Which to earn; it; that Carraher knew that' his first.-application under the "Timber Culture Act had been rejected, and afterwards that, decision was affirmed on appeal in 1891, arid that he could-not have.continued in the occupation of the premises in good, faith uhder claim-of title.-
• The-record shows that when the Secretary of the ..Interior (July. IT, 1891), affirriaed "the decision' against; Carraher’s "first'
timber culture entry the Commissioner in advising the Register and Receiver at Des Moines by letter of July .13,1891, of that decision, added: “It appears that on May 31,1888, more than’ three years after the rejection of his application, and while his case was pending before the Secretary of the Interior, on appeal, your office allowed Carraher to make tihiber culture entry 607 of the land. The actibn was.. without authority and the entry has this day been cancelled.” It does not appear that Carrahér was notified that this .entry 607 had been can-celled, nor was he. ever called upon to appear in reference to the same, and the letter of the Commissioner discloses that the Register of the Land Office at DeS Moines should not have allowed the entry ■ to be made and that it was summarily cancelled without notice or hearing. Carraher had been advised by the letter from his counsel, who had become a judge of a court in Iowa, that he might take possession and proceed to comply with the timber 'culture law. As far as the record shows, he heard nothing further from his entry, knew nothing of its summary cancellation, ’ and no attempt ■ was made tó disturb his possession of the premises. ’'
The 'Supreme Gourt of Iowa held that there was nothing .in these.facts to show that Carraher was not acting in good faith, and with the belief that he would acquire title under the last entry under the Timber Culture Act, and we are not prepared to disturb this holding.
After 1891, as we have seen/ the railway company was in position to have, ousted him from the premises and asserted its superior title and right. It did not attempt to do this,- and so far as the record.discloses made no objection to Carraher planting and cultivating the trees required .by the act of Congress, to perfect his titlé under the second application. His possession was certainly open, notorious, continuous and adverse, and unless he was acting in bad faith, was such as would ripen into full title 'as against the railway company, it failing to assert its rights within the period of the Statute' of Limitations. While'until the time had run required by the
Timber Culture Act,- Carraher would have been in no position to claim title as against the Government, he was occupying a hostile attitude toward the railway company, and, while recognizing title in the United States, he expected to acquire, title from it, had excluded all others from the use and occupation of the land and held under no other title. The Supreme Court of Iowa has' held that under such. circumstances the statute of. limitations of Iowa would run in his favor as against the railroad company, and we find no reason to disturb that conclusion. • And for more than ten years that company was iii such position- under its grant that.it might have maintained an action in ejectment and asserted its title to the premises as against Carraher.
We find no error in the judgment of the Supreme 'Court of Iowa and it will be
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Brevier concurs, in the'judgment.