Sioux City & Iowa Falls Town Lot & Land Co. v. Griffey

delivered the opinion of the court.

.. The first and principal question is at what time the title of the railroad company attached, whether at the time the map of definite location was filed in the General Land Office at Washington, or when, prior thereto, its line was surveyed and staked out on the surface of the ground. While the question in this precise form has never been before this court, yet the question .as to the time at which the title attaches, under grants similar to this, has been often presented, and the uniform ruling has been that it attaches at the.time of the filing of the map of definite location. Grinnell v. Railroad Co., 103 U. S. 739; Van Wyck v. Knevals, 106 U. S. 360, 366; Kansas Pacific Railway Co. v Dunmeyer, 113 U. S. 629, 634; Walden v. Knevals, 114 U. S. 373; United States v. Missouri, Kansas dec. Railway, 141 U. S. 358, 375.

In Van Wyck v. Knevals, where the question arose between Knevals, the grantee of the railroad company, and Yan Wyck, who had' entered the lands^ at the. local land office after the filing of the map of definite location with the Land Depart-, ment, but before notice thereof had been received at such local land office, this court said : “ The route must be considered as ‘definitely fixed’ when it has ceased to be the subject of change at the volition of the company. Unfil the map is filed with the Secretary of the Interior the company is at • *39 liberty to adopt such a route as it may deem best, after an examination of the ground has disclosed the feasibility and advantages of different lines. But when a route is adopted by the company, and a map designating it is filed with the Secretary of the Interior and accepted by that officer, the route is established; it is, in the language of the act, ‘ definitely fixed,’ and cannot be the subject of future change, so as to affect the grant, except upon legislative consent.” And in Pacific Railway Company v. Dunmeyer, it is also said: uWe are of opinion, that under this grant, as under many other grants containing the same words, or words to the same purport, the act which fixes the. time of definite location is the act of filing' the map or plat of this line in the office of the Commissioner of the General Land Office. The necessity of having certainty in the act fixing this time is obvious. Up to that time the right .of the company to no definite section, or part of section, is fixed. Until then many rights to the land along which the-road finally runs may attach, which will be paramount to that of the company building the road. After this no such rights can attach, because the right of the company becomes by that act vested. . It is important, therefore, that this act fixing these rights shall be one which is open to inspection. At the same time it is an act to be done by the company. The company makes its own preliminary and final surveys by its own officers. It selects for itself the precise line on which the road is to be built, and it is by law bound to report its action by filing its map with the commissioner, or rather in his office.' The line is then fixed. The company cannot alter it so as to affect the rights of any other party.”

The reasoning of these opinions is applicable here.' The fact that the company has surveyed and staked a line upon the ground- does not conclude it. It may survey and stake many, and - finally determine the line upon which it will build by a comparison of the cost and advantages of each; and only when by filing its map it has communicated to the govérnment knowledge of its selected line, is it concluded by its action. Then, so far as the purposes of the land grant are concerned, is its line definitely fixed; and' it cannot thereafter, *40 without the consent of the government, change that line so' as to affect titles accruing thereunder. In accordance with these decisions it must, therefore, be held, that the line was not definitely fixed until the 13th of October, 1856.

Inasmuch as Griffey’s preemption right had attached to this land prior to such time, it did not pass to the railroad company under the grant; and it was a matter of no moment to the company what thereafter became of the title. This is settled by the case of Pacific Railway Company v. Dunmeyer, in which it was said: “It is not conceivable that Congress intended to place these parties as contestants for the land, with the right in each to require proof from the other of complete performance of its obligation. Least of all is it to be supposed that it was intended to raise up, in antagonism to all the actual settlers on the soil, whom it had invited to ifs occupation, this great corporation, with an interest to defeat their claims, and to come between them and the government as to the performance of their obligations.” And, again : “ Of all the words in the English language, this word attached was probably the best that could have been used. It did not mean mere settlement, residence or cultivation of the land, but it meant a proceeding in the proper land office, by which the inchoate right to the land was initiated. It meant that by such a proceeding a right of homestead had fastened to that land, which could ripen into a perfect title by future residence and cultivation. "With the performance of these conditions the company had nothing to do. The right of the homestead having attached to the land it was excepted out of the grant as much as if in a deed it had been excluded from the conveyance by metes and bounds.” See also Hastings & Dakota Railroad v. Whitney, 132 U. S. 357, in which was a similar ruling.

The- only other question we deem important is this: On July 5^ 1871, the State of Iowa issued a patent, under which plaintiff in error claims, and on June 30, 1882, the United States issued a patent to Griffey, which is the basis of defendants’ title. The defendants filed, as was authorized under the Iowa statute, a cross-petition, praying to quiet their title, *41 and the decree entered was one ■ dismissing the plaintiff’s bill and quieting defendants’ titlQ. ■ ■

Now, it is claimed that .Griffey never complied with the preemption laws; that he never made a. bona fide settlement; that he secured his preemption rights by false representations and a pretended settlement; that he does not come into a court of equity with clean hands, and is entitled to no relief; and that, therefore, there was error in entering a decree in favor of the defendants upon the cross-petition. But as we have seen, Griffey' did make a settlement, file his declaratory statement and thus initiate-a preemption right. By these means such preemption right had, in the language of the statute, attached. The land, therefore, did not pass under the railroad grant. It was no matter of interest to the company what became of the title. The government, the owner of the land, was satisfied with what Griffey had done, took from him its land warrant as payment, and patented the land. Into, the bonafides of this transaction, no one but the government can inquire. As the title was beyond challenge on the part of the railroad company, it had no right to cast a cloud thereupon, and having done so by accepting a patent from the State of Iowa, under the pretence that the land was a part of the grant made to that-State, and having affirmed the validity of the title conveyed by such patent, it does, not lie in its mouth, or with those claiming under it, to now object to a decree removing all cloud cast by such patent.

• We see no error in the rulings of the Supreme Court-of Iowa, and.its judgment is.

■Affirmed.