Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 2).pdf/388

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.
362
NORTH DAKOTA REPORTS.

the plat of definite location in the office of the commissioner of the general land office, then thecriterion was established by which the lands to which the road had a right were to be determined. Topographically, this determined which were the ten odd sections on each side of that road where the surveys had been made. This filing of the map of definite location furnished also the means of determining what lands had been previously to that moment sold, reserved, or otherwise disposed of by the United States, and to which a pre-emption or homestead claim had attached; for by examining a plat of this land in the office of the register and receiver, or in the general land office, it could have readily been seen if any of the odd sections within the ten miles of the line had been sold or disposed of, or reserved, or a homestead or pre-emption claim had attached to any of them. In regard to all such sections, they were not granted. The exprees and unequivocal language of the statute is that the odd sections, not in this condition, are granted.” Railroad Co. v. Dunmeyer, 113 U. 8. 640, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 566. The company, after filing the plat of definite location, has the title to a fixed amount of land, to be selected by it, under the directions of the secretary of the interior, from among the odd numbered sections of unappropriated land within the indemnity limits. To the extent of this quantity the government title to the odd-numbered sections is divested; and, assuming that the government had the right to locate this quantity, and designate the particular parcels to be taken in satisfaction thereof, and the right to say where it should not be taken, with the consequent right to dispose of the surplus before satisfying the grant (an assumption by no means warranted by the language of the act), yet it would be obliged to retain a sufficient quantity of lands to satisfy this grant. U. S. v. McLaughlin, 127 U. 8. 428, 8 Sup. Ct Rep. 1177; Minneapolis & S. C. R. Co. v. Duluth & W. R. Co, 45 Minn. 104, 47 N. W. Rep. 466. The sole purpose of the selection under a grant of quantity is to identify the specific parcels granted, and so attach thereto the vested title. It does not operate to create a new title or interest. It but defines the particular object upon which the previous general gift shall operate; and, if that particular object is ascertained,