certificate of purchase issued to Jones these words were written: "This receipt is issued under the order of the Secretary of the Interior, dated February 28th, 1898, subject to any claim the Northern Pacific Railroad Company may have to the lands herein described." Of course, the Secretary had no authority to do this, and his act had no legal efficacy. If the Railroad Company had rights superior to those acquired by Jones those rights could have been protected despite the certificate issued to Jones. If it had none, then the endorsement across the face of the certificate is to be regarded simply as a warning to Jones that he might have in the future a contest with the Railroad Company. The endorsement that Jones' purchase was subject to any claim the company "may have," neither added nor took away rights that belonged at the time to either the company or to Jones.

In our opinion the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals should be affirmed.

CAMPBELL v. WEYERHAEUSER.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

No. 12. Argued April 27, 28, 1910.-Restored to docket for reargument December 19, 1910.-Reargued January 19, 20, 1911.-Decided February 20, 1911.

Decided on authority of Weyerhaeuser v. Hoyt, ante, p. 380.

THE facts are stated in the opinion.

Mr. Charles W. Bunn and Mr. Frank B. Kellogg, with whom Mr. Stiles W. Burr was on the brief, for appellants in No. 24 and appellees in No. 12.

Mr. Charles W. Bunn for plaintiffs in error in No. 181.

Mr. M. H. Stanford, with whom Mr. H. H. Hoyt was on the brief, for appellees in No. 24 and appellants in No. 12.

Mr. P. B. Gorman for defendant in error in No. 181.1

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the court.

This case and the Hoyt case, just decided, are of the same general character, and were consolidated and tried below as one case. In this case, however, the application of Campbell to purchase the tract by him claimed was rejected by the Land Department, and Campbell was not permitted to enter the land. The land furnishing the selection basis also lay further west in Minnesota than the lost tract in the Hoyt case. The Court of Appeals held that Campbell acquired no equitable interest in the land by his application, and the denial thereof, and consequently he could not maintain a bill in equity to charge the title under the patent issued to the railroad company upon a selection of a tract as lieu land, and affirmed the decree of the Circuit Court dismissing the bill. As in any event the decision rendered in the Hoyt case is decisive of this, we hold that the bill was rightly dismissed, and the decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals is therefore

Affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN and MR. JUSTICE DAY dissent for the reasons set forth in the dissenting opinion in case of Weyerhaeuser v. Hoyt, ante, p. 380.

1 This case was argued simultaneously with No. 24, Weyerhaeuser v. Hoyt, ante, p. 380, and No. 181, Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Wass, post, p. 426.

No. 181. Argued April 27, 28, 1910-Restored to docket for reargument December 19, 1910.-Reargued January 19, 20, 1911.-Decided February 20, 1911.

Decided on authority of Weyerhaeuser v. Hoyt, ante, p. 380.

THE facts are stated in the opinion.

Mr. Charles W. Bunn and Mr. Frank B. Kellogg, with whom Mr. Stiles W. Burr was on the brief, for appellants in No. 24 and appellees in No. 12.

Mr. Charles W. Bunn for plaintiffs in error in No. 181.

Mr. M. H. Stanford, with whom Mr. H. H. Hoyt was on the brief, for appellees in No. 24 and appellants in No. 12.

Mr. P. B. Gorman for defendant in error in No. 181.1

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the court.

In brief, the facts of this case are as follows: While a filed selection by the St. Paul and Northern Pacific Railway Company of land within the indemnity limits of a railroad grant was awaiting the action of the Secretary of

1 This case was argued simultaneously with No. 24, Weyerhaeuser v. Hoyt, ante, p. 380, and No. 12, Campbell v. Weyerhaeuser, ante, p. 324.

the Interior, Fred Wass, in April, 1899, entered upon the land with the intention of making it a homestead, and continued in possession, making improvements, etc. In December following Wass presented to the Land Office an application to enter the tract under the homestead laws. The register and receiver fled his application, but on the same day rejected it and refused to receive the fees tendered, basing such refusal and rejection upon the ground that the lands filed for were embraced in the then pending selection. On appeal the action of the local Land Office was affirmed by the Commissioner of the General Land Office and by the Secretary of the Interior respectively. The selection was subsequently approved and a patent for the lands was issued by the governor of Minnesota, all rights under which became vested in the Northern Pacific Railway Company, the plaintiff in error. That company then commenced this action against Wass and his wife in a court of the State of Minnesota to recover possession of the land and damages for the detention. In the answer, among other things, affirmative relief was prayed against the railway company for the conveyance of the legal title to Wass. A demurrer to the answer was overruled upon the authority of the decision in Sjoli v. Dreschel, 199 U. S. 564, and a decree was entered in favor of Wass, granting the relief prayed by him. This decree was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Minnesota upon the authority of the Sjoli case as well as the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals in Hoyt v. Weyerhaeuser, 161 Fed. Rep. 324. The opinion just announced, reviewing the action of the Circuit Court of Appeals in the Hoyt case and reversing the decree entered in that case, conclusively establishes that error was committed by the court below, and therefore requires a reversal.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Minnesota is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

HARLAN and DAY, JJ., dissenting.

219 U.S.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, with whom concurred MR. JusTICE DAY, dissenting.

This action was instituted in the District Court of Todd County, Minnesota, by the Northern Pacific Railway Company, a Wisconsin corporation, to recover the possession and damages for the detention of the southeast quarter of section thirteen, township one hundred and twenty-nine, north of range thirty-two west, situated in the above county.

The answer of the defendant Wass states certain facts both by way of defense and as the basis for an affirmative decree against the Railway Company, declaring that the legal title to the land is held in trust for his use and benefit, and should be conveyed to him. The company demurred to the answer as not stating facts sufficient to constitute either a defense or a counterclaim. The demurrer was overruled, and the case was determined on the facts stated in the answer, as well as on those set forth in a special finding. By the decree it was adjudged that the legal title was held in trust for the defendant, and the plaintiff was ordered to convey the title to him by sufficient deed. On the authority of Sjoli v. Dreschel, 199 U. S. 564, and Hoyt v. Weyerhaeuser, 116 N. W. Rep. 937 (104 Minnesota, 411), the Supreme Court of Minnesota affirmed the decree. The case is here for review.

Upon the record before us the following facts must be taken as beyond question:

1. The lands in question were surveyed public lands of the United States within the twenty mile indemnity limits of what are known as the Northern Pacific Railroad land grants made by Congress to the Territory of Minnesota by the act of March 3d, 1857, c. 99, 11 Stat. 195, and by the act of March 3d, 1865, c. 105, 13 Stat. 526, granting lands to that State, which last act was amended March 3d, 1871, 16 Stat. 588, c. 144.