Neer v. Williams

27 Kan. 1
CourtSupreme Court of Kansas
DecidedJanuary 15, 1882
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 27 Kan. 1 (Neer v. Williams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Neer v. Williams, 27 Kan. 1 (kan 1882).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Brewer, J.:

This was an action of ejectment, brought by plaintiff in error, plaintiff below, to recover possession of a tract of land in Allen county. The Case was tried by the court without a jury, and was submitted upon a certain agreed statement of facts. Upon such agreed statement the district court found for the defendant, and to review such decision this proceeding in error has been brought.

The vital question in this case is one whigh must ultimately be decided by the supreme court of the United States. While but a single tract of land is in controversy, there are many thousands of acres the title to which rests upon the decision of this question. Ordinarily, when a question of such moment is before us, we should feel called upon, not merely to announce our' conclusions, but to give at some length our reasons therefor; but inasmuch as the final decision does not rest with us, as this case is, as we understand it, simply passing through this court on its way to the supreme court of the United States, and as very full and exhaustive briefs have been filed on both sides, in which all the considerations have been presented with great clearness and ability, we shall content ourselves with simply stating, in a few words, our conclusions. The agreed statement is as follows:

(Court and title omitted.) “It is hereby agreed between the parties hereto, that the above case shall be tried, submitted, and determined by the court, upon the following statment of the facts, which is a true and full statement of the facts of the case, to wit:

“1. The land in controversy was, on and prior to March 3, 1863, ‘public land’ of the United States, and subject to homestead and preemption entry under the laws of the United States.

“2. The said land is not situated within ten miles of the line of the Leavenworth, Lawrence & Galveston .railroad company, (formerly called the Leavenworth, Lawrence & Fort Gibson railroad company,) nor within ten miles of the [51]*51line of the Missouri, Kansas & Texas railroad company, (formerly called the Union Pacific railroad company, southern branch,) but is more than ten miles from the line of either of said railroads, and is within the twenty-mile or indemnity limits of both of said railroads, under the grants made by the acts of congress of March 3, 1863, (12 U. S. Stat. 772"; Gen. Stat. of Kansas, p. 885,) and of July 26, 1866, (14 U. S. Stat. 289.) !

“3. The said land is situated where, by reason of the juxtaposition of said Leavenworth, Lawrence & Galveston, and Missouri, Kansas & Texas railroad companies’ lines, their indemnity or twenty-mile limits overlap each other.

4. The said land is not situated within fifty miles of the Atchison, Topeka & Santa .Fé railroad, nor •.within fifty miles of any line or branch of railroad constructed by the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé railroad company, but would have been within twenty miles of the terminal limits of the Neosho valley branch of said railroad if the same had been constructed ‘down said Neosho valley to the point where the Leavenworth, Lawrence & Fort Gibson railroad enters said Neosho valley,’ as provided by the act of the legislature of Kansas of February 9, 1864; (Gen. Stat. of Kansas 1868, p. 885;) that is to say, said land would have been beyond the end and within twenty miles of the point where said branch intersected the Leavenworth, Lawrence & Fort Gibson railroad, but would not have been within a strip twenty miles wide lying parallel to said branch on either side thereof, if the same had been constructed.

“ 5. On May 5,1863, the commissioner of the general land office transmitted to the register and receiver of the United States land office at Humboldt, Kansas, in which district said land is, a diagram of the probable route of the Leavenworth, Lawrence & Galveston railroad, and a letter withdrawing certain lands from market, pursuant to the said act of March 3, 1863, (12 U. S. Stat. 772,) a copy of which letter of withdrawal is hereto attached, marked ‘A,’ and made a part hereof.

“ 6. By the said diagram of the probable line of said railroad, upon which said withdrawal was ordered, the land in controversy came within the ten-mile limits of the Leavenworth, Lawrence & Galveston railroad, and was accordingly withdrawn from preemption and homestead entry, and has never since been restored to sale by the government, unless [52]*52the act of July 24, 1876, (19 U. S. Stat. 101,) had that effect.

“7. The said Leavenworth, Lawrence & Galveston railroad was not constructed upon the line defined by the diagram transmitted in the letter of the commissioner of the general land office, marked ‘A,’ but was constructed upon a different line; and on the 10th day of May, 1867, the commissioner of the general land office transmitted to the said register and receiver another diagram, showing the actual location of said railroad, by which diagram the land in controversy was shown to be within the twenty-mile limit .of said Leavenworth, Lawrence & Galveston railroad; but by said letter the land in controversy was directed to be withdrawn as within the indemnity limits and as indemnity under the said act of March 3, 1863, for sáid Leavenworth, Lawrence & Galveston railroad company, which withdrawal was made accordingly: A copy of said letter of withdrawal is attached hereto, marked ‘B.’

“8. On the 3d day of April, 1867, the commissioner of the general land office transmitted to said register and receiver a diagram of the Missouri, Kansas & Texas railroad line, and directed a withdrawal of odd sections for twenty miles on each side, under said act of July 26, 1866. A copy of the letter of withdrawal is attached, marked 1C.’ The land in controversy fell outside of ten miles and within twenty miles of said line, and had already been reserved and withdrawn from sale for the Leavenworth, Lawrence & Galveston railroad under the act of March 3, 1863, by direction of the commissioner of the general land office.

“9. The said Leavenworth, Lawrence & Galveston railroad company did not within ten years construct its road from Leavenworth to Lawrence, nor its branch 'from Lawrence, by the valley of the Wakarusa river, to the point on the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railroad where said road intersects the Neosho river/ nor has said road from Leavenworth to Lawrence, or said branch, ever been constructed as required by the said act of congress of March 3, 1863, and said act of the Kansas legislature of February 9, 1864. The commissioner of the general land office decided, October 8, 1874, that, by reason of the failure of said Leavenworth, Lawrence & Galveston railroad company to construct said road and branch, it had forfeited and was not entitled to any indemnity lands, and it has never recovered or received any.

[53]*53“10. The branch of the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé railroad, required by the said act of congress of March 3, 1863, and of the Kansas legislature of February 9, 1864, to be constructed ‘down the Neosho valley to the point where the Leavenworth, Lawrence & Galveston railroad enters said valley/ was not constructed within ten years; nor has the same ever been built or constructed.

“11.

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

Related

Worden v. Cole
86 P. 464 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1906)
Ard v. Pratt
43 Kan. 419 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1890)
Ard v. Brandon
43 Kan. 425 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1890)
Burnham v. Starkey
41 Kan. 604 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1889)
Brewster v. Kansas City, L. & S. K. Ry. Co.
25 F. 243 (U.S. Circuit Court, 1885)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
27 Kan. 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neer-v-williams-kan-1882.