Article Text
LILIENTHAL OWNS BARSTOW , Judge Ross Decides a Case Against the So. Cal. Ry. Two Other Decisions Rendered in the Federal Courts. The Twenty Acros on Which Earstow is Situated the Basis of a Suit - . A Large Draft in IssueA Bank Case. Roes yesterday in the United States circuit court an Judge handed down Lilienopinion in the case of Jesse W. thal VS. the Southern California Railway company ordering judgment for the plaintiff. The action was upon a 20-acre tract of or attempted to be selected defendant company, land by the selected and is is built. that upon the town of Barstow named Bugbee, A man which predecessor in a interest to the plaintiff, settled upon fractional part of the section which contained 51.55 acres and embracing the 20-acre tract in controversy in July, 1885, and September 12, 1885, filed his declaratory statement in the local land office and paid the fee for filing. He afterwards made final proof and payment and received a certificate of purchase therefor. This was, followed by a patent which was issued March 6, 1890, and the plaintiff derived title from him through various conveyances. Prior to Bugbee's gettlement the California Southern Railroad company filed with the register of the land office 8 map of the etation grounds at Waterman, upon which was indorsed a certificate of the president and affidavit of the chief engineer of the company. Subsequently September 30, 1885, a map showing a portion of the located line of the California Railway company at Waterman Junction was filed in the office of the register and receiver at Los Angeles, which received the approval of the interior department December 31, 1885. The same day the acting secretary of the interior approved the map. The court after discussing the question at considerable length decided that by the terms of the land grant of the railway company no right to ground for etation purposes attaches until the right of way is secured by a compliance on the part of the railway company with the provisions of the act of congress. So far as the evidence showed, the only map then filed by the railway company when the land in question was located was the one filed September 30, 1885. But before it met with the approval of the interior department, and prior to the time it was filed with the register of the land office, Bugbee settled upon the fractional part of section 16, including the 20 acresin dispute, and had filed his declaratory statement therefor. The trouble with the railway company, the court says, was that it did not follow the law, the provisions of which were very plain. The first thing it did was to file with the register a map of the station grounds desired, before it had secured the right of way for its road. Manifeetly, before any right could arise out of such a grant the right of way should be secured, which could be done by a compliance with the provisions of the law conferring it. As the right of way had not been secured at the time the map was filed, such filing initiated no right to the ground. Judgment is therefore ordered for the plaintiff." A LARGE DRAFT IN QUESTION. Judge E. M. Rose, in the United States circuit court yeaterday filed an opinion in the case of P. Flannagan and J. W. Bennett, bankers of Marshfield, Ore., VS. the California National bank of San Diego, a suit to recover the amount of a $6000 draft drawn by a Mr. Baines on the defendant, Graham. By their com. plaint the plaintiffs seek to charge the defendant, the California bank, now ir the hands of a receiver, with the payment of the draft, and a demurrer filed by the receiver, on behalf of the bank, raised the question of the latter's liabilitv. The promise counted on in this case was the promise of Cashier O'Brien of the defendant bank to pay Baines' draft on Graham, who was a customer of the bank and an anticipated depositor, and the court save that the question for decision is whether such a promise of the cashier of a national bank is binding upon the bank. After quoting numerous authorities the court sustains the demurrer. A BANK CASE. Judge ROBS also gives a decision, in accordance with an opinion filed, in the case of Eli H. Murray, receiver of the California Savings bank, ve. Frederick N. of was a suit the receiver National Pauley, by bank receiver San of Diego. of the the California insolvent It reNaa tional a of ceiver California bank, of the Savinga based insolvent upon bank against California certificate the deposit of the last named bank iesned to
