Sanford v. King

Citations

• 19 S.D. 334
• 103 N.W. 28
• 1905 S.D. LEXIS 36

Syllabus

<p>1. A decision of the Secretary of the Interior in a land contest over a homestead entry carried up to him should he sustained by the courts in the absence of clear and cogent reasons for overthrowing it.</p> <p>2. Where a statute includes both a particular and also a general enactment which in its most comprehensive sense would include what is embraced in the particular one, the particular enactment must be given effect, and the general enactment must be taken to embrace only such cases within its general language as are not within the provisions of the particular enactment.</p> <p>3. Act Cong. March 2,1889, c. 405, § 21, 25 Stat. 896, restored to the public domain all lands outside of certain reservations, and provided that they should be disposed of under the homestead and town site laws. Section 16 of the same act (25 Stat. 893) expressly confirmed the rights of a certain railroad to specified lands subject to certain conditions, and provided for a forfeiture of the lands if the same should be violated, • in which case they should be “open to homestead entry under the provisions of this act.” Held, that where the railroad lands were forfeited they were subject to homestead and not to town site entry.</p> <p>4. Where a party seeks to avail himself of a former judgment as evidence or in bar to a subsequent action, he must affirmatively show that the question which precludes relief in the second action was determined by the former one.</p> <p>5. A judgment finding that defendants were lawfully in “possession” at the time of the commencement of the action does not preclude plaintiffs from asserting “ownership” of the property in a subsequent action.</p>