LI\ CHAPELLE .,. BUBB.
claimed upon the hearing that the certified check which Hogg professed to tender Weill was for more than $445,000, nor is any explanation of this discrepancy attempted. Hogg, as president of the Oregon Pacific Oompany, the owner of nearly all the stock of the Willamette Valley Oompany, executed the mortgage deed containing this recital. In all that was done or professed to have been done under this power there was nothing consistent or straightforward. The sale of an option by Hogg, as Weill's attorney, to a company in fact owned by himself, without communicating the fact to his principal; the pretended tender of a certified check for $445,000; the recital in the deed by Hogg, as president of the Oregon Pacific Oompany, on October 1, 1880, that the Willamette Valley Oompany had the right to ''become the owner" of the property in question upon payment of $600,000; the pretended deed by Hogg, as attorney in fact for Weill,conveying absolutely the same properly on November 3,1880, acknowledged more than two years later,-admit of no explanation consistent with fair dealing and honest motives. In more than 10 years that have elapsed since the expiration of Hogg's power, the owners of the property have expended large sums of money in complying with the conditions upon which the grant was made by congress, in defending their title in the courts, and for other necessary expenses in connection with these lands. The pretended purchaser of the property or of the option to purchase has not offered to pay any of these expenses, and does not propose to do so now. Its insolvency confesses its inability to pay such charges or purchase price of the alleged sale. The plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed for, and such will be the decree.
LA CHAPELLE v. BUBB et a1. (Circuit Court, D. Washington, E. D. July 2, 1894.)
ALLOTMENT TO INDIANS OF LAND ENTERED FOR HOMESTEAD -INJUNCTION. INDIAN AGENT
Land entered by complainant under the homestead law, on which he had made valuable improvements, was included by the government in allotments made to certain Indians in fulfillment of a treaty stipulation, and his homestead filing was canceled. Held. that, the land not being within the boundaries of an Indian reservation, an Indian agent had no authority to eject complainant therefrom forcibly, and that complainant's possession should be protected by injunction pending a determination of the validity of his claim.
This was a suit by Alfred W. La Ohapelle against Capt. John W. Bubb, U. S. A., as Indian agent of the Colville Indian Agency, and certain Indian defendants, for an injunction to restrain said Indian agent from forcibly dispossessing the complainant of land which he claimed as a settler under the homestead law of the United States. Complainant moved for an injunction pendente lite. T. M. Reed, Jr., for complainant. Wm. H. Brinker, U. S. Atty., and F. C. Robertson, Asst. U. S. Atty., for defendants. v.62F.no.7-35
District Judge; J.Dhelarid in· controversy is not within the limitsM an Indianres8rv'ation. The complainant in good faith it, and filed hi:.theproper United States district land oftice:an'application to 'enter said land under the hom$tead law, and':Jms since reiltdedupon:and'cultivated thesame,and made valuable improvements thereon; fand.!s now prepared to make proof of full eomlpliance with the reqtiirementsof 'said law, so as to become entitled :to a patent. The 1 'government, however, after receiving said· homestead application, has' ,included said land in allotments made ·tothe Indian defendants hereip, in fulfillment' of a treaty stipuUttiQD. Jilade with Chief Moses· and other Indians of the Colville and Columbia Indian reservations,Mld canceled the homestead ingmade by ther'complainant;:andthe defendant Bubb,as Indian agent, 1!i01VpropolBelJand intends to ejecttheplaintiff from said premises :by'force, and has given notice to that effect. The rights of the complainant and ·of the Indian defendants; respectively, to the land described in theeomplainti have been thesubjeet of a contest in the upon a final hearing of that matter, the secretaryof,the interior has inadea decision adverse· to the plaintiff, purstlantto which his homestea<[: filing was canceled, as aforesaid. Thec.omplainant contends that said decision is erroneous, by reason of unfaivhel3s: in the proceedbigs'and of misconstruction of the law. Manifestly, the plaintiff's contention is in good faith. Until a judicial:'determination of tbe questioDS of law affecting the same, his claim to .the :land in controversy, cannot be extinguished. If he has a superior right in law; irreparable injury will be done by dispossess.mg ·him. ,: It is no '. part of the function pertaining to the office of an Indian agent to forcibly' eject persons from'premises not within the boundaries of an Indian reservation. If the Indians are entitled to possession, they shouldrnake application for judicial pro. to the laws, of the land. This cess to enforce their rights court will not, at the' present' stage of the case, express any opinion as to the validity of the plaintiff's claim to the land. Being the owner and in possession of valuable improvements which he has it is the duty of the court to protect his posses· placed upon the sion uutil the final hearing upon the merits. Injuticfi<lD granted.
PUGET$OUND NAT. BANK SEATTLE v. KING COUNTY et aI. (Circuit Court, D. Washington, N. D. June 18, 1894.) No. 141.
COLLECTOON; OF TAXES-'-REPEAL OF STATUTE-SAVING Cr,AUSE.
'l'heteJ;leal, by L<lj.ws Wash. 1893,.PP, 323-385, of all previous acts providing for assessmePl and did not affect pending proceedIng$ for collection pf personal property taxes a county treasurer under Rwurrant annexed to an assessment roll,issued to him pursuant to statute In force at the date thereOf, as' 75 of the act continues In force such warrants, previously Issued, as to talLes due and unpaid.
This waS a suit by the Puget Sound National Bank of Seattle against King county and others for an injunction to restrain the col·,