Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

insolvent building and loan association, appointed by Circuit Court with power to bring and defend suits, may bring suit for two hundred dollars in Federal court; Alexander v. Southern Home Bldg. etc. Assn., 120 Fed. 964, holding Federal court appointing receiver for loan association has jurisdiction of suit to collect assets below jurisdictional amount; Home Ins. Co. v. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co., 109 Fed. 686, holding equity has jurisdiction regardless of citizenship of parties of bill by defendant insurance companies, sued at law in Circuit Court to enjoin proceedings at law and determine liability; City of Eau Claire v. Payson, 109 Fed. 680, 48 C. C. A. 608, holding trustee in mortgage by water company to city cannot maintain suit in equity for rentals due water company where company's right is legal; In re Steuer, 104 Fed. 978, 979, holding contest on merits of suit to recover preference without objection to jurisdiction amounts to consent to jurisdiction within section 23b, Bankruptcy Act of 1898; Cunningham v. Cleveland, 98 Fed. 661, 39 С. С. А. 211, holding equity has jurisdiction to authorize receiver in suit to wind up corporation to bring in by ancillary bill a debtor of corporation to enforce indebtedness; Murray v. Beal, 97 Fed. 568, holding bankruptcy court has no jurisdiction of suit by trustee to quiet title to bankrupt estate where bill did not show right originally vested in bankrupt; Shinney v. North American Savings etc, Co., 97 Fed. 12, holding suit against Federal receiver ancillary to suit in which he was appointed is not dependent upon citizenship or amount involved; Coffey v. Gay, 191 Ala. 140, 67 South. 682, holding receiver cannot appeal from judgment without order of court; Miller v. Natwick, 110 Minn. 452, 125 N. W. 1023, holding in action of ejectment judgment of Circuit Court of United States is admissible; White v. Ewing, 69 Fed. 452, 16 С. С. А. 296, Ross etc. Foundry Co. v. Southern etc. Iron Co., 72 Fed. 959, Bausman v. Denny, 73 Fed. 70, Washington v. Northern Pac. R. R. Co., 75 Fed. 334, Carpenter v. Northern Pac. R. R. Co., 75 Fed. 851, Peck v. Elliott, 79 Fed. 12, 38 L. R. A. 620, 24 С. С. А. 425, Lanning v. Osborne, 79 Fed. 662, Bowman v. Harris, 95 Fed. 918, and Sullivan v. Barnard, 81 Fed. 887, all upholding Circuit Court's jurisdiction to appoint receiver under like circumstances; Thompson v. Pool, 70 Fed. 727, upholding Federal jurisdiction of action by receiver appointed by United States controller; Lanning v. Osborne, 79 Fed. 664, on motion to bring in additional parties; Ray v. Peirce, 81 Fed. 882, holding receiver officer of court to administer insolvent estate; Miles v. New South Bldg. etc. Assn., 95 Fed. 921, on petition by receiver to compel third parties to surrender securities owned by insolvent; Averill v. Southern Ry. Co., 75 Fed. 736, arguendo.

Distinguished in G. & C. Merriam Co. v. Saalfield, 241 U. S. 31, 60 L. Ed. 873, holding supplemental proceeding to obtain decree in personam against nonresident is not ancillary proceeding; Fidelity Trust

XVII-20

& Safe Deposit Co. v. Archer, 179 Fed. 38, 39, 103 C. C. A. 16, holding Federal court of equity has no jurisdiction of suit by receiver to collect assessments levied by court in suit to which stockholders were not parties; Cushman v. Atlantis Fountain Pen Co., 164 Fed. 95, holding suit to restrain infringement of patent cannot include issue as to unfair competition; Whelan v. Enterprise Transp. Co., 164 Fed. 96, 98, holding receiver cannot maintain plenary bill against one not party to receivership. proceedings; In re Scherber, 131 Fed. 124, denying bankruptcy court's jurisdiction to determine matter of summary proceeding by trustee in bankruptcy to recover alleged preference; In re Michie, 116 Fed. 753, holding bankruptcy has no jurisdiction over suit by trustee against transferee of bankrupt's property making adverse claim and objecting to jurisdiction; Gableman v. Peoria etc. Ry. Co., 101 Fed. 4, 41 C. C. A. 160, holding action against railroad receiver for personal injuries is not removable on sole ground of Federal appointment; Ray v. Peirce, 81 Fed. 885, denying removal from State court where proceeding not ancillary; Follett v. Tillinghast, 82 Fed. 241, holding action in State court against receiver of insolvent national bank not ancillary; Pitkin v. Cowen, 91 Fed. 601, suit against railroad receivers in State court not ancillary; Gilmore v. Herrick, 93 Fed. 527, suit against Federal receiver in State court, under Judiciary Act of 1888, not removable unless within sections 1 and 2 of said act; Sullivan v. Swain, 96 Fed. 259, holding principal case not authority where receiver sues in jurisdiction other than that of his appointment; State v. Flannelly, 96 Kan. 378, 152 Pac. 24, holding receivers of public utility are under jurisdiction of public utility commission; Pendleton v. Lutz, 78 Miss. 326, 327, 330, 333, 29 South. 164, 165, 166, holding, under section 3, Act March 3, 1887, Federal receiver cannot remove suit involving less than two thousand dollars, such suit not being ancillary to litigation in Federal court.

Miscellaneous. Cited in Gordon v. Dillingham, 158 Fed. 1020, 86 C. C. A. 672, without opinion.

159 U. S. 40-46, 40 L. Ed. 68, 15 Sup. Ct. 988, HORNE V. SMITH.

Official surveys are not attackable collaterally at law.

Approved in Whitaker v. McBride, 197 U. S. 512, 49 L. Ed. 860, 861, 25 Sup. Ct. 530, patentee of land on river owns unsurveyed island on his side of channel in accordance with local law against one claiming to enter same as homestead; Callahan v. Price, 26 Idaho, 752, 146 Рас. 734, holding islands in existence when Idaho was admitted to Union did not pass to State; Barringer v. Davis, 141 Iowa, 434, 120 N. W. 70, holding survey is conclusive although meander line is run where no lake existed; Kneeland v. Koeter, 40 Wash. 368, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 745, 82 Pac. 611, railroad entitled to tide-lands within place limits of grant surveyed long before in Washington, before it became State.

Meander lines are not boundaries, but designed to show sinuosities of stream.

Approved in Niles v. Cedar Point Club, 175 U. S. 306, 44 L. Ed. 173, 20 Sup. Ct. 126, Niles v. Cedar Point Club, 85 Fed. 50, 29 C. C. A. 5, and Niles v. Cedar Point Club, 85 Fed. 52, 54, 29 C. C. A. 5, all reaffirming rule; Gauthier v. Morrison, 232 U. S. 459, 58 L. Ed. 684, 34 Sup. Ct. 384, holding agricultural land erroneously designated as lake was open to public settlement; Kean v. Calumet Canal Co., 190 U. S. 459, 47 L. Ed. 1137, 23 Sup. Ct. 652, holding Federal patent to Indiana, pursuant to Swamp-land Act 1850, of "whole or fractional sections" on government plat, carried portions submerged under navigable water; French Glenn Stock Co. v. Springer, 185 U. S. 52, 46 L. Ed. 803, 22 Sup. Ct. 565, holding presence of meander line along side of lake is not conclusive of existence of such lake, such existence being a question of fact; Foss v. Johnstone, 158 Cal. 129, 110 Pac. 299, applying principle; Johnson v. Hurst, 10 Idaho, 319, 77 Pac. 788, allowing patentee to quiet title to land between his meander line and stream; Sherwin v. Bitzer, 97 Minn. 255, 106 N. W. 1047, shifting shore line of lake and not meander line fixed by government survey is boundary of adjoining lot; Bleakley v. Lake Washington Mill Co., 65 Wash. 222, 118 Pac. 8, holding owner of land fronting on shore-land is not entitled to preference in purchase of shore-lands; Washougal Transp. Co. v. Dalles etc. Nav. Co., 27 Wash. 497, 68 Pac. 77, holding grant of upland bordering on navigable river carries to high-water mark and not limited by meander line along river.

Distinguished in McGrath v. Myers, 126 Mich. 215, 85 N. W. 716, holding where purchase-money mortgage provided for discharge if vendor during life failed to convey perfect title, failure to secure release of possible claim for rents and profits was discharge.

Patent for surveyed land does not carry title to unsurveyed land adJoining.

Approved in Producers Oil Co. v. Hanzen, 238 U. S. 338, 59 L. Ed. 1336, 35 Sup. Ct. 755, refusing to decree title to land between traverse line and waters of navigable river; Scott v. Lattig, 227 U. S. 242, 44 L. R. A. (N. S.) 107, 57 L. Ed. 496, 33 Sup. Ct. 242, holding omitting island from survey does not divest title of United States; United States v. Lee Wilson & Co., 214 Fed. 637, 642, applying principle; dissenting opinion in Lattig v. Scott, 17 Idaho, 534, 107 Pac. 59, majority holding patentees of land along river took title to island in river.

Distinguished in Little v. Williams, 88 Ark. 51, 113 S. W. 344, holding grant to township did not include unsurveyed lands erroneously included within meandered line of lake; Lattig v. Scott, 17 Idaho, 519, 520, 524, 107 Рас. 53, 55, holding patentees of land along river took title to island in river.

Where survey places boundary at bayou, patentee cannot claim land between that and river.

Approved in Chapman etc. Land Co. v. Bigelow, 206 U. S. 44, 45, 51 L. Ed. 956, 27 Sup. Ct. 679, holding decision of State court refusing to grant title to land between bayou and river is not reviewable by Supreme Court; Security Land etc. Co. v. Burns, 193 U. S. 186, 48 L. Ed. 674, 24 Sup. Ct. 425, meander line of lake controls against actual boundary of lake which never existed within half mile, survey being fraudulent; Whitaker v. McBride, 197 U. S. 514, 49 L. Ed. 861, 25 Sup. Ct. 530, holding shifting shore line of lake and not meander line was boundary of adjoining lot; Chapman etc. Land Co. v. Bigelow, 77 Ark. 341, 350, 92 S. W. 535, 539, swampy lands subject to inundation lying between meander line and river did not pass to grantee of adjoining lands; Tolleston Club v. Lindgren, 39 Ind. App. 453, 77 N. E. 820, applying principle; Johnson v. Hurst, 10 Idaho, 319, 320, 322, 77 Pac. 788, 789, quieting title of patentee to land between his meander line and stream; Security Land etc. Co. v. Burns, 87 Minn. 106, 94 Am. St. Rep. 691, 91 N. W. 307, holding boundaries of lots appearing from government plat to abut on nonexistent body of water cannot be extended; Canavan v. Dugan, 10 N. M. 321, 62 Pac. 973, holding where monuments established by United States surveyor in subdividing a township contradict fieldnotes, former control boundary; Hauge v. Walton, 72 Wash. 559, 131 Pac. 250, holding where strip of land exists between upland and land in river, same will not be considered island; Steinbuchel v. Lane, 59 Kan. 10, 51 Pac. 887, holding meander line of government survey, where two channels, to be center of channel nearest plaintiff's land; dissenting opinion in Kean v. Calumet Canal Co., 190 U. S. 490, 47 L. Ed. 1149, 23 Sup. Ct. 664, majority holding Federal patent to Indiana of "whole of fractional sections," referring to government plat, conveys portions submerged by navigable water.

Distinguished in Grand Rapids etc. R. R. Co. v. Butler, 159 U. S. 95, 40 L. Ed. 88, 15 Sup. Ct. 994, holding unsurveyed island passes to holder of government patent for land on bank of stream; Murphy v. Kirwan, 103 Fed. 108, holding, after causing survey of township containing navigable lake, and of meandering of lake, United States cannot claim meander line inaccurate and destroy riparian rights of purchasers; Johnson v. Johnson, 14 Idaho, 568, 573, 586, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1240, 95 Рас. 502, 503, 508, holding grantee of land on banks of non-navigable stream takes title to middle channel of river; dissenting opinion in Producers' Oil Co. v. Hanszen (La.), 61 South. 761, 762, majority holding grant does not include swamp-land existing between meander line and course of water.

159 U. S. 46-62, 40 L. Ed. 71, 15 Sup. Ct. 1020, WISCONSIN CENTRAL R. R. CO. v. FORSYTHE.

:

Act of Congress granting land is to be controlled by intent, if ascertainable.

Approved in Northern Lumber Co. v. O'Brien, 204 U. S. 201, 51 L. Ed. 443, 27 Sup. Ct. 249, upholding withdrawal order of "lands twenty miles in width"; Wisconsin Central R. R. Co. v. United States, 164 U. S. 205, 41 L. Ed. 404, 17 Sup. Ct. 49, construing railroad land grant; United States v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 69 Fed. 92, holding State-aided railroad not required to account to national auditor under act of 1878; United States v. Grand Rapids etc. R. Co., 165 Fed. 303, 91 С. С. А. 265, holding fact that reserved lands became public lands subsequent to grant would not include them in grant; United States v. Fisher, 38 App. D. C. 48, holding right to make final proof upon homestead entries on other land did not extend to assignees of settler; Massachusetts Inst. of Technology v. Boston Society of Nat. History, 218 Mass. 191, 105 N. E. 875, holding where land granted included space reserved for park, purchasers of land were entitled to easement to park.

Reservation by Land Department does not preclude express grant by Congress.

Approved in Northern Pac. R. R. Co. v. Musser-Sauntry Land etc. Co., 168 U. S. 607, 42 L. Ed. 598, 18 Sup. Ct. 206 (approving 68 Fed. 997, 16 C. C. A. 97), holding reservation of lands by land office excepted them from railroad grant; United States v. Grand Rapids & I. R. Co., 154 Fed. 135, 136, holding land reserved to Indians at time of grant did not pass to railroad company.

Distinguished in Northern Lumber Co. v. O'Brien, 139 Fed. 617, 71 C. C. A. 598, railroad grant did not include lands previously withdrawn for purpose of satisfying unlocated prior grant.

Title to land granted to railroad remains in government until selection. Approved in St. Paul etc. Ry. Co. v. Sage, 71 Fed. 46, 17 C. C. A. 558, and Paige v. Kolman, 93 Wis. 437, 67 N. W. 701, but holding upon location of road, title relates back to original grant.

Courts are not concluded by construction of law by Land Department. Approved in Wisconsin Cent. R. R. Co. v. United States, 164 U. S. 207, 210, 41 L. Ed. 405, 406, 17 Sup. Ct. 50, 51, Ferry v. United States, 85 Fed. 557, 29 C. C. A. 345, and Lockhart v. Wills, 9 N. M. 344, 54 Pac. 339, all following rule; Magruder v. Belle Fourche Valley Water Users' Assn., 219 Fed. 78, 133 C. C. A. 524, holding courts may review assessment of Interior Department in aid of irrigation project; Hemmer v. United States, 204 Fed. 905, 123 C. C. A. 194, holding lands granted to Indians under act of March 3, 1875, were not affected by act of July 4, 1884, extending period of alienation; People's United States Bank v. Gilson, 161 Fed. 291, 88 C. C. A. 332, holding courts may correct

« ForrigeFortsett »