KNEVALS ·V.· HYDE.
651
try the, question of title, it could not be tried' elsewhere exoept by the allowance' and permission of that court. . The lU,natio and her oommittee are both parties to this case ; .the committee has defended it on her behalf, with the sanction of the state court whioh appointed him, and they are both bound by any deoree passed herein, and we think the fruits of that decree should be realized without special diffioulty. In our judgment the oomplainants have shown themselves to be entitled to the relief prayed for, and we will sign a deoree in proper form establishing their rights, and direoting .that the fund' affected by the decree be brought into this c01;1rt for the benefit of the parties entitled to it.
KNEVALS
v.
HYDE.
(Circuit Oourt, D. Nelnaska. 1. ACT OF
--,1881.)
CoNGRESS, JULY 23, 1866-BoNA }'IDE PURCHASER. Under the act of congress of JUly 23, 1866, the equitable ownership of the land vested in St.Joseph & Denver Qity Railroad Companv ,upon filing the map of the,location of the road with the secretary: of the interior, and a patent thereafter iss,ued bythe United ferred no title' on a bona .fidBpurchaser without notice of the locaiion of the road. DECLARE FOR1l'EITUItE. The right .to declare a forfeiture of the land for breacb, of condition by the company. and resul:\l,e the grant, belongs the United States, and cannot be taken advantage of by such purchaser.
12.
RIGHT TO
In Equity. Demurrer to Original Bill. . In 1866 congress made a grant of hind to the state of Kansas to aid in the constructionol the St. Joseph & Denver City Railroad, which road was to run from Elwood, in Kansas, via Maryville, to a junction with the Union Pacific Railroad; or any branchthereot In pursuance of the terms of the grant the company filed a map of its line with the secretary of the interior on the twenty-eighth of March, '1870.' This map was transmitted to the localland·offioe at Beatrice, where it was . received on the thirteenth of April following. On the elev-
652
FEDERAL REPORTER.
enth of April one Cropsey entered one quarter section included in the grant, and afterwards a patent therefor was issued to him. Knevals claims under the railroad company, and Hyde under Cropsey, and the first question arising in the case was whether the grant to the company took effect when the map was filed with the secretary of the interior, or when it was received by the local officers. The grant contained the condition that the road should be built to a junction with the Union Pacific Railroad, or one of its branches, within ten . years. The road was built toa junction with the Burlington ,,& Missouri River Railroad in Nebraska within ,the· time limited, but not to the Union Pacific, ana it was objec.ied by the defendant that the Burlington was not a branch of the Union Pacific, and therefore that the condition had been broken and the lands forfeited. It was also objected that Cropsey was a bonafide purchaser notice oUhe location of the railroad, and therefore was 'entitied to protection against its claims. J. M. Woolworth, for plain,tiff·. : ". E. Wakeley, for defen.da:p.t.. ·iMn.LER,· C.J. ·1. II 8;ni of the opinion that within the "meanihg'of'tbe .firBt'sectidh Jnly 23, "1;8'66; {ciutpter' that lands i to the state of Kansas for the use and benefit of the St."Joseph & Denver City Railroad lillle:orrQute of the roa;d" wits "definitely fixed" when ;on the itwenty'-eighth 'of March, . 1870, a map of said location, adopted Iby the' board of directof the company', was received by filed with the secre· taryof the interior as the law required. It follows that on that day the right to the use and benefit of the se.ctions of land designated by odd numbers, within 10 sections on each side of that line, became vested in the company, including the quarter section now in controversy, unless it had been previously sold, or otherwise came within the excepting clause of the act. 2. The origin of defendant's adverse title is a purchase made from the United States through its land officers 14 days after the rights of the company had vested. The equitable
and.
KNEVALl'b V. HYDE.
. l
·653
title to the land had therefore vested in, the Jor:apany before any interest in it whatever had come to Cropsey, the. of the defendant. 3. The rights of the parties in this case are not affected by the question of notice. No other notice was required of the company than filing its map with the secretary of the interior. No other act was necessary on the part of the company to establish its right to the land. No other act could be done by the oompany towards perfecting the title u,ntil so much of the road was .built as authorized it to apply for patents for the land. And it will scarcely be contended that until the patents issued any location by purchase from the government could come in and take it up as vacant land. It is probable that the strict legal title passed to the state of Kansas for l1se9f, the tpe ,of fi¥ng the map, and related back to the date of the statute, which makes a grant to the state' in pr<ese'fiii Of lands to be ascertained by a9t of the road." it is to say that on the filing of the map there was vested In the company theequitableownership.oHheJa.nd-s.n equity which 09111d only be defeated bY' 1ftiltire to per£b!fil the Mhditions of the grant; ,1he power in the offices of 'the lana aep'attment to sell the land was'gone;' by them conferred no real right, though it gave !loP: tiHe.:" It is not a case, therefore, of It "J:ight, in which the prior right ·Qtherwise, , :the filing o'fthe map ill of the general land-office at Washington,the, pnlynotice the, cqmpany could give I was sufficient to require Cropsey to of it. ", 4. With the que,stion of forfeiture, by reasQn ,of failure to complete the road, neither defendant nor. his grantor has anything to do. They cannot declare such a failure,nor does a loss of the title arise as a, legal consequence out of such a failure. The sale to defendant's grantor was riot intended to assert such a forfeiture, because at the date of that sale no ground of forfeiture ensted. This court, however, has settled the doctrine .that in cases of this class the right to
654
PSDERAL,BEPOBTER.
declare the forfeiture and resume the grant belongs to the United States, and can only be made effectual by an act of congress or a judicial proceeding. Schulenburg v. Harriman, 21 Wall. 44. The allegations of the bill demurred to make a case, therefore, in which complainant, being the equitable owner of the land, finds himself embarrassed by an apparent legal title in defendant,· and therefore entitled to relief in a court of equity. . . The demurrer to the bill is therefore overruled, with leave to defendan·t to answer within a reasonable time, to be filed by the court.
FALLS WIRE MANt1r'G
Co. v.
BRODERICK.
(Circuit Court,. E. D, MillJOy,ri. March, 1881.) 1. REMOVAL-COUlimn CLAm -AMOUNT IN DISPUTB -
Acrr 01' MARCH
3,1875.
The claim of theplain\Uf,and not the counter claim of the defendant, should fix the. amount in dispute, in determining the right to remove a cause from the state court under the act of March.a, 1875. c/'a'l'k8on v. Manion, 4 FBD. REF. 257, contra.-(ED.
Motion· to Remand. Lo-ui8 R. Tatum, for plaintiff. Noble If Orrick, for defendant. TREAT, D. J. The Ohio corporation, brought stIit in the state circuit court for less than $300, the defendants being citizens of Missouri. The defendants appeared (February 8th) and filed an answer and counter claim. The counter claim is based on an alleged contract in writing, for the non-perform.anee of which' the defendants have sustained damages (unliquidated) in the sum of $1,000. No written conitact '\"fas filed, or profert thereof made. an the following day the defendants filed a petition for :the removal of the cause to this court. Under the act of· March 8, 1875, We defendants, though citizens of Missouri, had a right to the removal, the plaintiff \ being a