Oregon & California Railroad v. United States

Citations

• 243 U.S. 549
• 37 S. Ct. 443
• 61 L. Ed. 890
• 1917 U.S. LEXIS 1971

Syllabus

<p>The Oregon-California Railroad. Grants (Acts of July 25, 1866, as amended, and May 4, 1870) made no distinction between land covered with timber and other land, nor between the timber or other incidents and the land itself; title to all was vested in the railroad company for transmission to actual settlers upon the terms prescribed by the acts. The substantial interest granted the company was the right to exact not more than $2.50 per acre in so disposing of the lands. Oregon & California R. R. Co. v. United States, 238 U. S. 393, discussed and followed.</p> <p>While the railroad company could use the lands as a basis of credit, it could not by trust deed convey an interest in either land or timber exempt from the obligations imposed by the granting acts or the power of the Government to compel their performance.</p> <p>The granting acts being not mere instruments of conveyance but laws reserving the right of alteration or repeal, Congress, to overcome a situation largely due to breaches of obligation by the railroad company which made the original scheme impracticable, had power without the company’s consent to resume the title and provide for disposition of the land by the Government under conditions assuring the company the equivalent of its interest in the grants — not more than $2.50 per acre.</p> <p>The “Chamberlain-Ferris Act” of June 9, 1916, c. 137, 39 Stat. 218, examined and found to accord with the power of Congress and the principles laid down by this court in Oregon & California R. R. Co. v. United States, 238 U. S. 393.</p> <p>The. former decision of this court having directed an injunction to hold the land and timber intact until Congress should have reasonable opportunity to make' new provisions for disposing of them consistently with the interest of the railroad company, and an act having been passed accordingly after entry of the decree in the District Court, this court, upon a review of the decree based on an alleged departure from its former m