Southern Pacific Railroad Company v. United States

Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of'the court. This is a bill brought by the United States to annul *564 patents for lands lying within the indemnity limits of the grant made to the Southern Pacific Railroad Company by the act of March 3,1871, c. 122, § 23,16 Stat. 573, 579, known as the branch line grant, and within the grant made to the Atlantic and Pacific Railroad Company by the act of July 27, 1866, c. 278, 14 Stat. 292. The Atlantic and Pacific road forfeited its grant, (act of July 6, 1886, c. 637, 24 Stat. 123), and thereafter the Southern Pacific selected the two parcels in. question, as indemnity under its branch fine grant, one of them lying within the granted, and the other within the indemnity limits of the’Atlantic and Pacific. It relies on the general principle that whether lands are subject to selection as indemnity depends upon the state of the lands at the time the selection is made. Ryan v. Railroad Co., 99 U. S. 382. The Circuit Court, however, held that the right in this particular case had been decided not to exist, 152 Fed. Rep. 314, and the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decree. 167 Fed. Rep. 514. 93 C. C. A. 150. We are of opinion that the decision was right. In Southern Pacific Railroad Company v. United States, 168 U. S. 1, the lands in controversy embraced among others, as stated by Mr.. Justice Harlan, "lands within the Southern Pacific indemnity limits and the Atlantic and Pacific' granted limits; [and] lands within the common indemnity limits of both grants” — ibid. 47. It was held that the forfeiture to the United States did not enlarge the right of the Southern Pacific to select the lands in question and the decree was for the United. States. The proposition laid down in United States v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 146 U. S. 570, and United States v. Colton Marble & Lime Co., 146 U. S. 615, was applied to Southern Pacific branch line' indemnity lands. Whatever may be thought of the grounds for making an exception to the principle of Ryan v. Railroad Co., supra, the exception was established for- this case. An elaborate argument was *565 made on petition for rehearing that the decision could not be extended to indemnity lauds, but the petition was denied. In Southern Pacific Railroad Co. v. United States, 183 U. S. 519, the dismissal of the bill without prejudice to claims that by interpretation are said to include indemnity claims, imports no limitation of the previously established law, and on the other hand in Southern Pacific Railroad Co. v. United States, 189 U. S. 447, 451, 452, the case in 168 U. S. 1, was followed and the practice of the Land Department in accordance with that decision was mentioned as a further ground. There may be distinctions between the latest decision and this, but in view of the rightly established understanding it is too late to set them up now. Decree affirmed.