Robbins v. Bunn
Citations
- 54 Ill. 48
Syllabus
<p>1. Pre-emption rights—entry of government lands—who may decide as to their validity. Under the pre-emption laws passed by congress, the land officers have, by implication, the right to decide all cases of contested preemption, so far as they depend upon the fact of prior settlement, and their finding in that regard, has been held conclusive by the courts, on the ground that such officers, in these proceedings, act in a quasi judicial capacity, and within the scope of their authority.</p> <p>2. And the land officers having the power to adjudicate upon the facts which give a pre-emption right, they have the power when the right is contested by a person claiming under a private entry, as well as when both claim under pre-emptions.</p> <p>3. On the other hand, when such officers have undertaken to cancel a patent or a certificate of entry, for which a purchaser has paid his money, either at their discretion, or under some pretended regulation of the department which the law did not authorize, or under some clearly erroneous construction of the laws of congress, the courts have h'eld themselves not bound by such acts of the officers of the land department, because they were not exercising a judicial function within the limits prescribed by law.</p> <p>4. So where a party purchased a tract of land at a government land sale, receiving the usual certificate of purchase, and subsequently another was allowed to enter the same land as a pre-emptor, the former contested the pre-emption claim before the register and receiver, who held the claim good, and the first purchaser appealed to the commissioner of the general land office, who ordered the entry of the pre-emptor to be canceled, and at once issued a patent to the contestant. The party claiming the pre-emption then appealed to the secretary of the interior, who reversed the decision of the commissioner, decided the pre-emption claim to be valid, and ordered the patent issued to the first purchaser to be canceled: Sdd, in
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that the purchaser was entitled to compensation where the property was sold at $100 per acre and estimated to contain 28 40/100 acres but actually contained only 28 40/100 acres
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Lawrence
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.