is sought, whether it be mineral, for sons alleged in the answer, and that it can The foregoing views fully answer the objections urged against the patent under this head. It was not pretended that the land was reserved from sale by special act of Congress, but simply by force of the mining statutes, a position shown to be untenable. The opinion in the case of the St. Louis Smelting and Refining Company vs. Kemp and Nuttall, supra, is equally decisive of the other question, viz., the number of separate placer locations which may be included in one patent. The mining act of Congress of July 9, 1870, limited the location of a placer claim to 160 acres for one person, or an association of persons; the act of May 10, 1872: restricted locations to twenty acres for each claimant. In the above case the patent covered 164 acres and a fraction of an acre, and the court held the patent to be good, saying: "There is nothing in the acts of Congress which prohibits the issue of a patent for that amount. They are silent as to the extent of a mining claim. They speak of locations, and limit the extent of min The court then states the distinction between a "location" and a "mining claim," as follows: The judgment of the district court is af firmed. patented, and not to mines discovered and located within it. But however this may be, the language, certainly, does not mean, parties claiming to be "proprietors" who locate mines after the issue of the patent, but only persons who are "the proprie tors" of mines at the time when the When the UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT. patentee's rights attached. DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Patent to Lands Embracing Mines.-Where a Patent Relates to Entry.-Where a purchaser Before Sawyer, Circuit Judge. PACIFIC COAST MINING AND MILLING COM- right has attached, otherwise, the Act PANY U. SPARGO ET AL. would not have reserved the rights of "the proprietor of a vein," but would have reserved the vein itself. There can be no right of a "proprietor," to reserve unless there is a proprietor, who has rights to protect, at the time the reservaThe patent passed the tion is made. entire title as against any subsequent locator, and that being so, no legal right could be acquired against the patentee by a subsequent location. No man could become the proprietor of a mine already granted, except by purchase from the grantee. The patent cannot be attacked collaterally in this action. The land officers were charged with the duty of ascertaining whether the lands were subject to be patented or not, and their determination is conclusive, at least in this action. The case of Steel vs. St. Louis Smelting In the first case, the grantor of plaintiff and Refining Company, decided at the ing ground which an individual, or an as-entered and paid for the land described present term of the Supreme Court, is emsociation of individuals, may embrace in in the complaint, at the rate of $1.25 per phatic on this point. But the same prinone of them. There is nothing in the acre, at the proper land office, and re- ciple has been established by numerous reason of the thing, or in the language of ceived his certificate of purchase, on De- prior decisions of that Court: Smelting the acts, which prevent an individual cember 19, 1874. In pursuance of his Company vs. Kemp, 104 U. S. 636; Quinfrom acquiring, by purchase, the ground purchase, a United States patent in the by vs. Conlan, id. 426; Moore vs. Roblocated by others, and adding it to his usual form issued to him on September 6, bins, 96 id. 530; Shepley vs, Cowan, own." 1876. In March, 1880, the grantors of 91 id. 330; Johnson vs. Towsley, 13 defendants located, in the usual way, a Wall. 72; Vance vs. Burbank, 101 U. S. gold-bearing quartz lode, under the sur- 519. In the other case against Fick et al., face on the land in question, which they, the grantor of the plaintiff entered the "A mining claim is a parcel of land con- and the defendants, worked under ground, land, paid for it, and received his certifitaining precious metal in its soil or rock. by means of a tunnel extended into it cate of purchase on December 19, 1874. A location is the act of appropriating such from without the boundaries of the land. The mining location of defendants was parcel, according to certain established Defendants claim title under this mining made August 14, 1875, while the patent rules. *** If a miner has only the location. The patent to the plaintiff's issued upon the certificate of purchase is ground covered by one location, his 'min- grantor contained the clause: "Subject dated September 6, 1876. The difference ing claim' and 'location' are identical, and to any vested and accrued water rights between this and the other case, is that in the two designations may be indiscrimi- for mining, agricultural, manufacturing, this case the mining location was made nately used to denote the same thing. But or other purposes, and rights to ditches after the entry and payment for the land, if by purchase, he acquires the adjoining and reservoirs used in connection with but before the patent issued; while, in the location of his neighbor, that is, the ground such water rights, as may be recognized other, the mining location was not made which his neighbor has taken up, and and acknowledged by the local customs, till after the patent issued. But this adds it to his own, then his mining claim laws and decisions of Courts; and, also, can make no difference in the rights of covers the ground embraced by both loca- subject to the right of the proprietor of the parties. The purchaser became the tions, and henceforth he will speak of it a vein, or lode, to extract and remove equitable owner of the land the moment as his claim. Indeed his claim may in- his ore therefrom, should the same be he entered and paid for it, and received clude as many adjoining locations as he found to penetrate, or intersect the prem- his certificate of purchase. From that can purchase, and the ground covered by ises hereby granted, as provided by law." time, the United States had no real interall will constitute what he claims for Defendants insist that the mine, subse- est in the land. It only held the dry mining purposes, or in other words, will quently, located, is embraced in this pro- legal title in trust for the purchaser, pendconstitute his mining claim, and be so vision, "also, subject to the right of the ing the usual necessary delay in issuing designated." proprietor of the vein, or lode to ex- patents, and the patent only perfected the The conclusion arrived at is, that there tract and remove his ore therefrom, should title, the right to which had already is no limitation pnt upon the sale of the the same be found to penetrate or in- vested. Lands cease to be public lands, ground located, nor upon the number of tersect the premises hereby granted as when entered and paid for. People vs. locations which may be acquired by pur- provided by law." The language of Shearer, 30 Cal. 648; Gwynne vs. Nischase, nor upon the number which may be exception, strictly construed, seems to wanger, 15 0. 368; Astrom vs. Hammond, included in the patent. refer only to mines located outside 3 McLean, 108; Carroll vs. Perry, 4 McIt follows, therefore, that the patent is the lands, which by their dip, or in- Lean, 26; Carroll vs. Stafford, 3 How. 441; not void upon its face, for any of the rea-clination, penetrate or intersect the land Witherspoon vs. Duncan, 4 Wal. 210, 219; Hughes vs. U. S., id. 232; U. M. & Co. vs. Danberg, 2 Saw. 454. Mi. When the patent finally issues it attaches itself to the entry, and relates to the date of the entry. It is regarded for the purpose of protecting the rights of the patentee against parties seekto acquire intervening rights, as if issued at the date of the entry. The entry and patent are regarded as one title. Bagnell vs. Broderick, 13 Pet. 450-1; Gibson vs. Choteau, 13 Wal. 93; Shepley vs. Cowan, 91 U. S. 337; Smelting Company vs. Kemp, 104 U. S. 647; Hayner vs Stanley, 8 Saw. 225. The title of the plaintiff dates from the date of the entry, and payment, and not from the date of the patent; and the reservation in the patent relates to that date, and, therefore, antedates the mining location of the defendants. The plaintiff in each case has the legal title to the mine, as well as the land, and is entitled to recover the lode from which it has been ousted, and it is so ordered. April 16, 1883. REAL ESTATE. IMPORTANT DECISIONS BY FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS. [From the Cincinnati Law Bulletin.] Execution-Levy upon Real Estate-Assignment. Error to the District Court of Morgan County. 1. No entry by the sheriff upon real estate is necessary to constitute a valid levy thereon. 2. The levy of an execution from another county, when indorsed on the execution, and before entry thereof, as required by the act of 1860 (2 S. & C. 1402), is complete. 3. Under a deed of general assignment for the benefit of creditors, the assignee takes the real estate subject to all valid liens existing thereon against the assignor. Morgan, Kinney et al. Supreme Court of Ohio. Partition of Land-Mortgage on Undivided Interest in Land-Rights of Mortgagor in Partition Suit. 1. An undivided interest in land in fee simple, of which a decedent was seized or possessed as tenant in common or joint owner with another, is subject to partition. 2. A mortgagee of an interest in an undivided estate has an incumbrance but no estate in the land. He is not entitled to be made a party to a partition, and cannot prevent, control, or take part therein. On sale in partition, the lien of the mortgage is divested and thrown on the proceeds of sale or the owelty. Stewart and Wife vs. Allegheny National Bank. Supreme Court, Pa., 15 Legal Intelligencer, 90. [From the Colorado Law Reporter.] Tax Sales. Are purely statutory, and must be conducted, in all substantial respects, in strict conformity with the statutory provisions, otherwise they are void. Statute of Limitations.-The statute of limitations cannot avail one not in actual possession, claiming title to real estate under a void deed. In such case there is nothing to set the statute in motion-nothing for it to act upon or against. Gomer v. Chaffee. Supreme Court of Colorado. [From the Legal Intellingencer, Philadelphia.] Parol contracts for the sale of lands-EvidenceThe terms of a parol contract for the sale of land must be shown by full, complete, satisfactory and indubitable proof. Where an attempt is made to set up a parol contract for the sale of land against a father by one claiming under the son, the evidence of such contract must be direct, positive, express, and unambiguous. Edwards and Wife v. Morgan et al. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. When a vendor institutes an action founded upon a contract for the sale of land, and recovers a judgment for the purchase money, or what is the same thing, takes and enters up a judgment bond or note therefor, and then proceeds by execution to sell the land, he must be considered as selling all the estate in the land, whatever that may be, which he agreed to sell to the defendant. The lien on the property thus sold is prior to all others. Bowser v. Dick. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. After a contract for the sale of land had been executed, and before any money had become due thereunder, the land in question was seized and sold by the sheriff, upon a judgment obtained against the vendor prior to the contract of sale. The amount realized at the sheriff's sale was more than sufficient to pay all judgments against the vendor, and more than the whole sum the vendee had agreed to pay for the land. Both the vendor and vendee claimed the excess. Held, that the excess was rightly awarded to the vendee by the court below. Frick's Appeal. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Although an assignor for the benefit of creditors can except from the general assignment $300 worth cept land bound by a judgment lien for the payment of property exempt from execution, he cannot exof which he has expressly agreed the land shall not be exempt from execution. Time and manner in which the claim for exemption from execution must Pennsylvania. Sheaffer's Appeal, Supreme Court of be made. Where parties own lots fronting upon a turnpike road which is afterwards vacated, and a new street and disputes arise as to the ownership of such road so vacated, Held, that the lines of the lots in dispute angles with the vacated road. is run at an angle to the course of the old turnpike, should be the continuation of the old lines at right Wood v. Appal, 13 P. F. S., 210, distinguished. The act of 1809, regulating riparian rights on the Delaware river, as interpreted in Ball v. Slack, 2 Wharton, 507, approved. Kreiter v. Bigler, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Where the date of a deed is prior to the entering of judgments against the grantor, and the deed is not acknowledged or recorded until after judgments have been entered, the natural inference of such conduct will be that the deed was executed to defeat the lien creditors. McCandless v. Blakely, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. 1. The lien of a mortgage of a leasehold does not extend to an after-acquired leasehold of the same parties in the same premises, which is not a renewal of the former lease; and a sheriff's sale under said mortgage does not divest the interest under the second lease. 2. A feme covert in Pennsylvania is not enabled to convey or encumber real estate she may acquire by future purchase, but in which she has no present interest whatever; nor is she empowered to enter into any contract in the nature of a covenant to stand seized or to convey a interest in realty to be acquired by purchase in futuro. Doris v. Erwin and Wife, Orphans' Court of Philadelphia. [From the Ohio Law Journal.] Note and Mortgage-Extension of Time Discharges Surety-When the creditor extended a note for the principal without knowledge or consent of the surety, a mortgage given by the surety is dis charged. A judgment given by the surety attaches to the land and a subsequent waiver of the discharge will not defeat the lien of the judgment. Campion, Jr. v. Whitney, Supreme Court of Minnesota. By statute, passed April 20, 1881 (78 O. L. 403), the conimissioners of Hamilton county were authorized to lay out, open, grade and macadamize a road between certain points named, and to pay the cost thereof out of any unexpended balance in the road fund of the county; provided that no part of the money appropriated shall be applied in the purchase of the right of way. The act further provided that when a petition, signed by a majority of the property holders, shall be presented to the commissioners praying for its opening, they shall cause a survey and estimate of the cost of the road to be made, and the work shall be let to the lowest bidder. Held: 1. Before the commissioners can expend the fund appropriated for opening, grading or inacadamizing any part of the road, the entire right of way must be secured without cost to the county. 2. Where the road, as located, passes through land owned by minors, the right of way is not secured therein by a deed executed by the guardian of such minors without authority from the probate court. A guardian has no power to make such conveyance, and as against the minors the same is void. 3, The commissioners will be enjoined, in an action properly brought for that purpose, from expending the money so appropriated, in the construction of said road, until the right of way is legally obtained. Ohio ex rel. Miller Outcalt, Prosecuting Attorney, etc. v. The Commissioners of Hamilton County. Er ror to the District Court of Hamilton County." Effect of Apt Words to Convey Estate-Granting 1. A deed containing apt words to convey an estate in fee, must be held to have that effect, in the absence of other words showing clearly and unequivocally a different intention. 2. The granting clause in a deed was as follows: "The first party has agreed to sell and does hereby give, grant, bargain, sell and convey" unto the second party, their heirs and assigns, all the stone coal lying and being, under and upon certain premises," in consideration of thirty cents per ton on all coal when mined, and the second party bound themselves to mine at least 3,000 tons annually. It was also stipulated that the second party shall have the right to abandon the contract at any time when they shall determine, in their judgment, that said coal, in quantity, quality and condition, is no longer minable with economy and profit." Held: 1. All minable coal in place passed absolutely to the grantees. 2. After such conveyance no interest in the minable coal remained in the grantor subject to be mort gaged as land. 3. A mortgage upon the remaining interest of the grantor in the land, did not cover the purchase money due or to become due from the purchasers of the coal. Edwards et al., Trustees, etc. v. McClurg et al., Ohio Supreme Court. UPSON, J. Held: 1. When the owner of land granted to a railroad company the right to select a strip thereof, for its right of way, and from the terms of the grant, and the circumstances under which it was made, it is clear that both parties understood that the right location and construction of the railroad, and not granted was to be exercised at the time of the final afterwards, a court of equity will, by injunction, restrain such railroad company from taking possession of any additional part of said land, after its railroad has been located and completed. 2. When the terms of a grant of a right of way are general and indefinite, its location and use by the grantee, acquiesced in by the grantor, will have the same legal effect as if it had been fully described by the terms of the grant. Warner et al. v. Sandusky, Mansfield and Newark Railroad Company et al. §. C. Ohio. ligence. Railroad-Fences-Repairs-Burden of Proof—NegAn owner of land through which a railroad passes agreed with the railroad company to maintain and keep in repair a line of fence on the south side of the road, and the company agreed to do the like on the north side. convenience in rebuilding a bridge over a stream Afterwards the company, for its own of water there situate, removed a portion of the fence on the south side of the road, and, when the bridge was completed, instead of restoring the portion of fence removed, constructed, as a substitute therefor, wing fences from the abutments of the bridge, over its right of way, to the ends of the old fence, so as to prevent the passage of stock from the adjacent fields to the railroad. The portions of fence thus substituted for the part of the old fence which had been removed were accepted by the land owner as an inclosing fence to his fields. Held: 1. By accepting the new wing fences as a part of the line of fence inclosing his adjacent fields, it became the duty of the land owner to keep the same in repair. 2. Occasional repairs of the new wing fences by the company did not release the land owner from his duty to keep the same in repair. 3. Such land owner is without remedy where his stock passes, by neglect to make such repairs, to the track of the railroad, and is killed by a passing train, unless it be shown that the killing was caused by negligence in running the train. 4. The burden of proving such negligence rests on the plaintiff, It cannot be inferred from the facts of killing. Railroad Co. v. McMillen, 37 Ohio St., 554. Railway Co. v. Heiskell, Ohio Supreme Court. Homestead-Effect of Foreclosure on.-A decree in foreclosure cannot conclude the homestead rights of any person not a party to it. A mortgage made by a married man, and covering his homestead, is void, so far as his homestead is concerned, if executed without his wife's signature; and it cannot become valid by the wife's death or by suffering a decree of foreclosure to be taken pro confesso in a suit in which passed upon, and in which the wife has not been imno issue as to homestead rights has been raised or pleaded as defendant. In filing a bill to protect a homestead right in land which has been mortgaged by the husband alone, and against which a decree of foreclosure has been rendered, the husband should be joined as complainant; but the decree in such a suit is for the benefit of the family, and the death of the wife will make no difference if children survive. Shoemaker v. Collins. Michigan Supreme Court. 1. Homestead - Double House - Residence. - The premises consist of a lot in San Francisco, which with the improvements are of the value of $8,500. Upon the land is a double house, intended for two families, one part occupied by the insolvent, and the other part by his tenants. The house has two distinct entrances, and there is no interior connection by which a person can go from one house to the other. Held, that the portion not occupied by the insolvent could not be set apart as homestead property. 2. Mortgage on Premises. The existence of a mortgage on the above premises is not an element in the ascertainment of the property to be set apart as a homestead or its value. Tiernan v. Creditors. California Supreme Court. [From the Pacific Coast Law Journal.] Specific Performance-Contract-Time-PaymentNotice-Laches.-Action to enforce specific performance of a sale of real estate. Held, the contract was complete and certain, and fair in its terins; it was also mutual in its remedies, and such a one as a Court of equity will enforce. By its terms, time for the payment of the purchase-money was specified; but, although the purchaser failed to pay at the time specified, time was not of the essence of the contract, for the delay in making payment was excusable; the vendors consented to it and acquiesced in it, and never, at any time, withdrew their consent, by giving notice to the purchasers that they required performance within a specified time; laches was, there fore, not attributable to the purchaser in making his payments under the contract. Id.-Id.-When time is not of the essence of a contract for the conveyance of real estate, and has not been made so by notice, then the mere fact that the purchaser, with knowledge and consent of his vendors, enters upon and occupies the land under his contract, and makes valuable improvements thereon, is ordinarily decisive to entitle him to the favorable interposition of a Court of equity. military, or other purposes, or reserved for railroad Id.-Id.-And when, in addition to the circum- Id.-Tender.-The complaint contains no averment of a formal tender: but such a tender is not required in every case. Part performance and readiness to perform the remainder was, under the circumstances of the case, sufficient for the maintenance of the action. Id.-Id.--While it is competent for a defendant in an action for specific performance to show that by a subsequent parol agreement he was to retain the title until other money than that named in the original contract should be paid, and can properly refuse to convey until such subsequent contract is performed, on the principle that the plaintiff seeking equity must do equity, the finding on the subject is against the defendant. The offering of the above lands will be commenced Given under my hand, at the City of Washington, BY THE PRESIDENT: N. C. MCFARLAND, NOTICE TO PRE-EMPTION CLAIMANTS. Id-Decree.-Form of decree in Keller v. Lewis, 53 Mortgage-Interest-Note.-If it be true that the plaintiff held in his hands sufficient funds of the mortgagors with which to pay the interest on the note, and did not do so, it may be that the interest should not be compounded, but it certainly would not prevent the note from bearing simple interest according to its terms. Homestead Hotel. -The contention that mortgages executed under the power of attorney in ques tion were invalid because the premises were the homestead of defendants. Held, not well founded. True, the husband filed a declaration of homestead on the premises prior to the execution of the power of attorney; but the mere filing of a declaration of homestead does not of itself constitute the premises embraced within it, the homestead of the declarant. The use of the property is an important element to be considered, Every person entitled to the right of pre-emption [No. 882.] OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE HAILEY Id.-Id.-It appears that the premises in question were used by the Wrights primarily and principally as a hotel for the accommodation of the public. It was so used by them at the time of the filing of the Notice is hereby given that the Presideclaration, and until August. 1874, when, because of dent of the United States has, by Executhe embarrassed condition of their business, they tive order dated January 24, 1883, in left the hotel and put it in other hands. The Wrights, it is true, lived in the hotel until August, 1874, but accordance with the provisions of Section their residence there was but incidental to the business of running the hotel." When they becanie 2343, Revised Statutes of the United embarrassed in their business they sought a resi-States, directed the establishment of an dence elsewhere, and put the hotel property in charge of others; and this was prior to the execution additional land district in the Territory of Id.-Id-It would be doing violence to the statute Idaho, to be known as the Hailey land to regard property so used as a homestead, which is, district, bounded and described as follows: of the power of attorney to the plaintiff. and was intended to be, the place where the home is. Laughlin vs. Wright et al. Supreme Court of California. Pleading-Answer- Denial — Nonsuit- Contract Sale-Boarding-Action by assignee against detendant as purchaser of a tract of land. Plaintiff proved assignment and rested. Defendant moved a nonsuit, which was denied. The answer denied that the sale was for $800 in gold coin, as alleged in the complaint, and then proceeded to aver that the contract of sale was for $400 in money and $400 to be paid in boarding the plaintiff. Held, this was in legal effect to deny that the sale was for $800, or on any other terms than as set forth in the subsequent averments of the answer, and that, as plaintiff bad offered no evidence to establish the main allegation of his complaint, a nonsuit should have been granted. Gilman v. Bootz, Supreme Court of Cali fornia. [No. 887.] PROCLAMATION BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. In pursuance of law, I, Chester A. Arthur, Presi dent of the United States of America, do hereby declare and make known that a public sale of valuable government lands will be held at the Land Office at St. Cloud, Minnesota, on Monday, August 20, 183, at which time will be offered all lands not previously disposed of in the under-mentioned townships and parts of townships, viz.: North of base line and west of the 4th principal meridian in the St. Cloud, Minnesota, land district: Townships 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 62 and 63, Range 24. Townships 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59 and 70, Range 25. Townships 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 and 70, Range 26. Townships 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 and 70, Range 27. North of base line and west of the 5th principal meridian in the St. Cloud, Minesota, land district: Townships 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149 and 150, Range 25. Townships 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 149 and 150, Range 26. Townships 139, 140, 141, 142, 143. 144, 149 and 150, Range 27. Townships 143 and 144, Range 34. Townships 141, 142, 143 and 144, Range 36. Lands appropriated by law for the use of schools, Commencing at a point on the right bank of the Snake River at the intersection of the range line between Ranges 9 and 10 east of the Boisé meridan; thence north along said range line to the left bank of Salmon River; thence easterly up the left bank of Salmon River to the western boundary of Lemhi county; thence north along the said western boundary of said county to the boundary line between Idaho and Montana; thence southeasterly along said boundary line to the intersection with the range line between Ranges 29 and 30 east from Boisé meridian; thence south along said range line to the right bank of Snake River; thence westerly down the right bank of said Snake River to the place of beginning. And the President has also by said Further notice of the precise time when Given under my hand, at the City of BY THE PRESIDENT: N. C. MCFARLAND, MINERAL PATENTS ISSUED. Since our last report, patents have been issued for the following mining claims: ARIZONA. Cochise County. Woronoca Mg. Co., San Diego Lode. Samuel J. Webster, Champion and Rescue Ferre Mg. Co., Bee Lode. Peter Whitmer et al., Silver Queen Lode. CALIFORNIA. Butte County. Eben McKenney, Mountaineer Placer Mine. Lorenzo Herrick et al., Placer. C. E. Purington et al., Golden Gem Placer. Wm. Irelan, Sr., Yuba Qtz. Mine. M. S. Claypool, Hamilton Lode and M. S. W. W. Thompson et al., Mineral Point Lode. Cons. Mg. Co. of Seven Mines, Waverly Lode. Cons. Rico Mg. and Mlg. Co. of Colorado, Geo. W. Miles et al., John B. and Stephen B. Lodes. Gilpin County. Thos. Kennedy et al., West Gregory Lode. A. M. Cochran, Cumberland Lode. B. F. Betser, Badger State Lode. John F. Campion et al., Clara Burbank Lode. D. E. S. Covert et al., Phat Purse Lode. Ouray County. John W. Bailey et al., Columbia Lode. Wm. Story et al., Flagstaff Lode. Park County. Jas. Beattie et. al., Little Susie Lode. San Juan County. H. B. Adsit et al., Little Dora Lode. BHASTA. TRACY. Nos. 7813, 7815, 7817, 7819, 7824, 7825, 7829, 7831, 7833, 7835, Nos. 43, 48 (Sioux Indian Lands) 418, 2242, 2576, and Nos. 114, 116, 117 and 122 Desert Lands. HURON. Mitchell Series Nos. 7844 and 7885. Nos. 7771, 7779, 7780, 7753, 7790, 7799, 7804, 7805, 7806, 7816 Edward S. Douglass et al., John Wesley Lode. 7842, 7846, 7848, 7850, 7860, 7864, 7868, 7871, 7878, 7881, 7900, Paul D. Wallis, Seal Lode. Thos. C. Wilson, Rarus Lode. Summit County. Ira A. Cammett et al., Ridge No. 1 Lode. DAKOTA. Lawrence County. Avery D. Clark, Steward Lode. IDAHO. Custer County. Bay Horse Mg. & Smelting Co., Skylark ΜΟΝΤΑΝΑ. Silver Bow County. John Downs, Sister Lode. John F. Forbis et al., Eveline Lode. David Morgan, Independence Lode. NEVADA. Eureka County. WATERTOWN. Mitchell Series Nos. 7775, 7800, 7872, 7876, and 7877. GAINESVILLE. NELIGH. Norfolk and Neligh Series Nos. 3438, 3484, 3505, 3510, Nos. 134, 147, 160, 182, 183, 184, 186, 188, 190, 191 and 192. Nos. 293, 397, 1479, 2007, 2260, 2293, 2303, 2310, 2328, 2331, IDAHO. BOISE CITY. Nos. 579, 581, 582, and Desert Land Act No. 6. IOWA. DES MOINES. Nos. 2049, 2050, 2051 and 2052, 6346. Townsite of Coun- KANSAS. Nos. 1408, 5141, 7214, 7332, 7674, 7771 to 7776 inclusive, Madeline Goetz et al., Pride of the West 8074, 8155, 8195, 8212, 8215, 8231, 8233, 8261, 8275, 8286, 8304, Lincoln County. 8324, 8384, 8428, 8455, 8461, 8477, 8480, 8482, 8490, 8497, 8502, J. W. M. Cardeza, Thompson Lode and Mill 8621, 8640 and 8642, Osage Trust Lands. Manuel San Pedro et al., Star of the West 2036, 2044, 2089, 2090, 2096, 2124, 2162, 2183, 2216, 2218, 2241, Cawker City, Kirwin Series Nos. 8, 120, 833, 842, 1371, WA KEENEY. Nos. 66, 399, 410, 411, 419 and 480. Nos. 14179 to 14201 inclusive, 14204 to 14208 inclusive, Nos. 1524 and 1814. MINNESOTA. Nos. 1929, 1932, 1949, 1950, 1952, 1953, 1973, 2134 to 2138 in- and 2457. 8AINT CLOUD. Nos. 8534, 8570 and 8617. Nos. 732, 733, 792, 873, 979, 1008, 1009, 1010, 1032, 1036, 1037, Nos. 623, 1824, 1874, 1994, 1996, 1997, 2001, 2002, 2006, 2007, FLORIDA. GAINESVILLE, Nos. 2046, 2227, 2233 to 2238 inclusive, 2240, 2241, 2244, IDAHO. BOISE CITY. Nos. 183, 341 to 346 inclusive, 349, 350, 351 and 353. OXFORD. Nos. 22, 223 to 233 inclusive, 235, 237 to 244 inclusive. 5334, 5335, 5352, 5367, 5371, 5372, 5373, 5381, 5383, 5387, ST. CLOUD. Nos. 2528, 3369, 3570, 3677, 4001, 4004, 4188, 4238, 4252, MISSISSIPPI. Nos. 1846. 2088, 2089, 2093, 2107, 2109, 2110, 2134 to 2139 in- Nos. 52, 90, 98, 99, 100, 103, 104, 106 to 110 inclusive, 119. VOL. X. COPP'S LAND OWNER. Instructions-McLeoud vs. Weade-Barbee vs. Gilmore-F. M. Heaton. 90 91 John H. Hosmer - Erik Thoresen Smithbak- 92 TIMBER CULTURE. WASHINGTON, D. C., JUNE 15, 1883. No. 6 THIS paper furnishes more valuable law informa- fit $2,000, J. L. McCreary and F. W. tion for less money, and is read by more land attor neys and real estate dealers, by more homestead, ALL Registers and Receivers of the U. In case of Thyen es. Canedy, decided May 16, 1883, Secretary Teller intimates that had not other reasons for dismissing the contest been sufficient, he would have dismissed it for non-compliance with the Rules of Practice. He urges the local officers to rigidly comply with these rules in every particular. This is a partial acknowledgment of the valuable services of U. J. Baxter, who is thus spoken of by Senator Call, as reported in the Congressional Record: "It has come within my observation in the course of my duties here, that the person performing the duties of chief law clerk in the Assistant Attorney General's office in the Interior Department is a man of extraordinary capacity, fully qualified to perform any judicial duty or any legal or professional duty that may be imposed on any man in any position. It has also been made known to me by actual experience in that office, the people of my State having had many subjects of interest to them connected with the public lands before the law officers of that department, that he is one of the most industrious men whom I have ever seen in any position, either public or private. He is thoroughly familiar with the laws upon subjects relating to his department, and is conversant, by an experience of many years, with all the decisions of the department. I am informed that he stands very high in the esteem and conab-fidence of those who have been at the head of the department. THE Index to Vol. 9 of the LAND-OWNER has been sent out. Subscribers who fail to receive it will please notify by postal. LAND PERSONALS. COMMISSIONER MCFARLAND has been sent in Kansas, superintending some land "I made the inquiry what his compensation matters. On his last birthday the ladies | was. That compensation this bill proposes to of the office waited on him in a body, make, in common with another appointee, $2,and presented a floral offering. The Com- 250. There is no question that in any pursuit missioner is very suave and polite, and connected with the law, outside of this department, he would be able to command at least $5,reaches his conclusions after mature de-000 a year. I am informed that he is a man of 94 liberation. C. A. Rice-Shanly vs. Moran-Boyson vs. Born.... 93 Frederick C. Zimmerman... RAILROADS. Capt. John Mullan, San Francisco & Washington, Ellery C. Ford, Washington, D. C. Riddle, Davis & Padgett, Washington, D. C.... ATTENTION is called to the new cards in the Land Directory, of George F. Good96 win, of Lisbon, Henry Hoffman, of Blunt, and Fort & Fort, of Bismarck, energetic land men in the glorious country of the 96 Dakotas. O. F. DAVIS, of Bismarck, Dakota, and 96 O. F. Davis, of Omaha, Nebraska, are two different individuals. They resemble each other only in their devotion to the land business. 98 99 99 .100 THE General Land Office has lost two 100 of its ablest men: F. D. Hobbs and G. B. Coburn have resigned to accept special agencies in the West. Some of the best .100 PAGE large family, and that he has been in this office for many years; and has no hope of increasing his compensation by any effort or occupation in any other pursuit. It is manifest to any one who knows anything about the necessities of life and the expense of living in Washington, that this amount is not adequate compensation for such a man as I have described, and that it will not afford to a man and his family more than a bare and meager support, without anything for the education of his children, or as a provision against sickness and age or discharge from office. "I have but little personal acquaintance with this gentleman. All that I know I have learned in the course of my official relations with his department; but I submit to the Senate that a ment for so many years, of such eminent qualifications, every day passing upon questions in man who has been in the service of the Govern 1 decisions under the Homestead and Tim-volving large amounts of money, every day I PAGE III AMONG the recent and well-merited promotions in the General Land Office, Charles T. Yoder takes a 4th class clerkship, J. W. Sanderson, a 3d, W. A. Marks, a 2d, and G. A. Woolley, a 1st. By promotions and additions, under a recent law of Congress, Gen. McCamImon's assistants in the law bureau of the Interior Department are U. J. Baxter $2,750, N. P. Loveridge $2,500, E. E, IV Cooley $2,250-N. S. Howe, S. W. RitIvtenhouse, F. L. Campbell and S. V.Proud III IV saving to the Government large sums of money, Messrs. Palliser, Palliser & Co., of Bridgeport, Ct., the well known Architects and Publishers, have lately issued a sheet containing plans and specifications of a very tasteful modern eight-room cottage with tower, and also with the necessary modifications for building it without |