A relative of mine was describing a question that had come up regarding the status of a strip of land in Iowa upon which the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Rwy. Co. had operated their line once upon a time, a line apparently originally constructed in about 1869 by the Burlington, Cedar Rapids and Minnesota Railway, eh? The line has been abandoned and is now a part of the Herbert Hoover Nature Trail. Don't ask me how someone came up with such a magnificent name.
Anyway, the problem was to figure out the status of the strip of land formerly used by the railroad. The land in question is out of Section 16, so, naturally, being an outlander I thought it would be simple enough to see when the land had left USA and how the parts on opposite sides of the railroad strip had been described in the patents.
As it turned out, while the patents were formally issued by USA to the State of Iowa in the 1930's, the State of Iowa had been apparently dealing with every Section 16 in the State as if fee simple title had been vested in the State of Iowa since at least 1845 or 1846 by virtue of two federal statutes.
Sec. 6 of the Act of March 3, 1845 "An Act supplemental to the act for admission of the States of Iowa and Florida into the Union" (5 Stat. 789) provided:
"That section numbered sixteen in every township of the public lands, and, where such section has been sold or otherwise disposed of, other lands equivalent thereto, and as contiguous as may be, shall be granted to the State for the use of schools."
The key point is that the language says "shall be granted", not are hereby granted or will convey upon admittance to the Union.
The Act of December 28, 1846 (9 Stat. 117) admitting Iowa into the Union reiterated:
"That all the provisions of "An Act supplemental to the Act for the Admission of the States of Iowa and Florida into the Union," approved March third, eighteen hundred and forty-five, be, and the same are hereby declared to continue and remain in full force as applicable to the State of Iowa, as hereby admitted and received into the Union."
The patent given in the 1930's by USA looked as if it had a story attached to it, the remarkable part being the time that had elapsed between successive attempts to formally transfer title. Federal statutes in 1845 and 1846; another statute in 1889 authorizing the issuance of patents; another in 1927 apparently for the same purpose; and finally making it all happen about 90 years after statehood. What's up with that?
First and foremost I know nothing of Iowa.
But Oklahoma had the same idea I suppose. Every Section 16 AND Section 36 was originally set aside as school lands. The CLO (Commissioners of the Land Office) still hold (most of) these lands as lease and minerals. Oklahoma has also by statute sold some of these lands, but usually retained mineral interests.
And just as you stated, the title of these lands gets a little blurry, depending on where you're looking.
Probably differing from Iowa because Oklahoma was operated as territories for so long, but the railroad companies were given carte blanche by the U.S. Congress as to where they wanted to locate their routes. So quite simply there are railroad interests that predate everything and actually have no formal fee conveyance. As the routes were bought and sold among the rail companies over the years is actually the best way to come up with any records or descriptions.
No help at all about Iowa, sorry. Just to say it sounds like what went on around here too.
Were the terms of the Land Ordinance of 1785, subject to a variety of interpretations?
"There shall be reserved for the United States out of every township, the four lots, being numbered, 8, 11, 26, 29, and out of every fractional part of a township, so many lots of the same numbers as shall be found thereon. There shall be reserved the lot No. 16 of every township, for the maintenance of public schools within the said township. Also one third part of all gold, silver, lead and copper mines, to be sold, or otherwise disposed of, as Congress shall hereafter direct."
I think that RR went through West Branch, the town where Herbert Hoover was born, although the trail certainly isn't continuous over the whole distance.
http://www.traillink.com/trail/hoover-nature-trail-%28oasis-to-west-branch%29.aspx
http://www.inhf.org/trails/hoover-nature-trail.cfm
Your questions far exceed my meager knowledge of title histories.
You might find something of interest in this Iowa DOT document, which I haven't looked at for some time
http://www.iowadot.gov/iowarail/railroads/regulatory/rail_abandonment_brochure.pdf
Another resource could be the book _Iowa Public Land Disposal_ by Roscoe Lokken, State Historical Society of Iowa, 1942. It is of course written from the historical perspective and not the land title perspective, but could contain some useful summaries and references.
> Probably differing from Iowa because Oklahoma was operated as territories for so long, but the railroad companies were given carte blanche by the U.S. Congress as to where they wanted to locate their routes. So quite simply there are railroad interests that predate everything and actually have no formal fee conveyance.
Yes, when I saw that late patent date, the first thing that popped into my head was that Section 16 had remained federal land well into the 20th century (when it likely had not) and that the railroad had acquired it's right-of-way under either the The General Railroad Right-of-Way Act of 1875 which provided railroad companies "right(s) of way through the public lands of the United States," (43 U. S. C. §934) or an earlier act.
C'mon Kent... It's a Iowa thing....
> I think that RR went through West Branch, the town where Herbert Hoover was born, although the trail certainly isn't continuous over the whole distance.
Yes, the name "Herbert Hoover Nature Trail" doesn't exactly trip off the tongue and I thought Herbert Hoover was an engineer by training, which makes the whole thing sound more like a very long hiking trail for nudists. :>
http://www.iowadot.gov/iowarail/railroads/regulatory/rail_abandonment_brochure.pdf
There actually is an inventory of abandoned railroads that Iowa DOT maintains. Iowa statute evidently provides that abandoned rights-of-way revert to the adjoining landowners if certain criteria are met. What I was interested in discovering was whether the strip of land had actually been acquired in fee simple or only as a right-of-way.
I can't find a copy of it right now, but at Statehood one of the first acts of our legislative branch was to acknowledge ALL of the federal land statutes and accept them as state law. This is where our statutory right-of-ways were accepted and the "federal" school lands simply became "state" school lands.
A quick scan of the index and RR chapter of the Lokken book found nothing specific to that railroad, nor any discussion of legal fine points of the grants.
> A quick scan of the index and RR chapter of the Lokken book found nothing specific to that railroad, nor any discussion of legal fine points of the grants.
For right now, I'm assuming that whatever right that the Burlington, Cedar Rapids and Minnesota Railway acquired was whatever they either negotiated with the landowner to transfer voluntarily or got involuntarily by condemnation, and that it could be fee simple title or just a right-of-way.
The whole "rails to trails" foolishness is nothing more than an uncompensated land grab.
Using Herbert Hoover's name in Iowa is akin to using that of Mark Twain in Missouri, except that in Missouri it should be Samuel Clemens. The Mark Twain Forest is a cluster of distinctly separate areas of the State all given the same title.
I think what you are referencing is just really belated house-keeping.
I recall looking thru grantor grantee indexes in both Sanders County and Lake county in Montana and seeing page after page of listings from the federal gov't to the state, all having the same date, and all for section 16 or 36 for every township in the county- and if I remember correctly it was circa 1930.
I suspect you'd see the same type of listings in Iowa.
I'll be going to one of those courthouses this coming week and I might be able to post a picture.
> I think what you are referencing is just really belated house-keeping.
> I recall looking thru grantor grantee indexes in both Sanders County and Lake county in Montana and seeing page after page of listings from the federal gov't to the state, all having the same date, and all for section 16 or 36 for every township in the county- and if I remember correctly it was circa 1930.
Yes, the 1930's-vintage patent was for what appeared to be just abut every Section 16 in the State of Iowa, all covered by the same patent.
In California 16 & 36 vested in the State upon approval of the Plat. If a township was fractional and was missing a 16 or 36 then the State got an indemnity selection which it sold. The Indemnity List takes the place of the patent. There will be Patents from the State. The State even patented lands to itself. We have a State Forest which we got via Patent from the State Lands Commission although all State owned lands are vested in the State with jurisdiction in the appropriate department.
> In California 16 & 36 vested in the State upon approval of the Plat.
Was that by virtue of the federal statute under which California was organized or admitted to the Union?
More possible references
A 38-page book from 1869 about the company:
Burlington_Cedar_Rapids_and_Minnesota
The appendix may be helpful in understanding their organization, but probably does not list their properties/easements.
----------
This page lists predecessors to the Rock Island line. The initial company didn't get the line built. The planned route appears to differ from that later constructed.
http://home.covad.net/scicoatnsew/rihist2.htm
10/7/1867 Cedar Rapids and Burlington Railroad Company
Incorporated "to construct and operate a railroad extending from Cedar Rapids to Burlington, via Iowa City, via Wapello, to connect with a road from Burlington via Keokuk and St. Louis."
No construction done.
Consolidated into Burlington, Cedar Rapids and Minnesota Railway Company on [6/30/1868], filed 12/19/1868.
The latter link describes consolidation of companies and construction history.
According to the SLC website...
School Lands
"School lands" are what remain of the nearly 5.5 million acres throughout the State originally granted to California by the Congress in March of 1853 to benefit public education. The State retains surface and mineral ownership of approximately 469,000+/- acres of these "school lands" and retains only the mineral rights on an additional 790,000 acres.
Today these lands are held in trust for the betterment of the common schools of the State and the revenue, by statute, supports the State Teachers' Retirement System. Over half of the "school lands" are located in the California Desert.
Interesting, the Texas GLO has this PDF on their website:
http://www.glo.texas.gov/wslca/pdf/presentations-2011/wslca-presentation-ca-2011.pdf
From:
5 S.Ct. 1141
115 U.S. 102
29 L.Ed. 311
FRASHER and others
v.
O'CONNOR.
May 4, 1885.
The act of congress of March 3, 1853, 'to provide for the survey of the public lands in California, the granting of preemption rights therein, and for other purposes,' placed the public lands in that state, with certain specified exceptions, subject to the general pre-emption law of September 4, 1841. 10 St. 246, § 6. Among the excepted lands were sections 16 and 36 of each township, which were declared to be thereby granted to the state for the purposes of public schools, and lands claimed under any foreign grant or title. The act also declared, in its seventh section, that where a settlement by the erection of a dwelling-house, or the cultivation of any portion of the land, should be made on the sixteenth and thirty-sixth sections before they should be surveyed, or where such sections should be reserved for public uses, or 'taken by private claims,' other lands should be selected in lieu thereof by the proper authorities of the state. The lands in controversy were within the boundaries of a tract claimed under a confirmed Mexican grant, known as the 'Rancho Sausal Redondo.' As sections 16 and 36 of townships were covered by the grant, a case was presented within the seventh section of the act of congress, in which the state was authorized to select other lands in lieu of them. The legislature of California, by an act passed April 27, 1863, provided for the sale of certain lands granted to the state by congress, and, among others, of the sixteenth and thirty-sixth sections in the several townships, or of lands which might be selected in lieu thereof. It prescribed the proceedings to be taken for the purchase of the lands, and required each state locating agent to keep a record of applications to purchase made to him, and when they amounted to 320 or more acres, o apply on behalf of the state to the register of the United States land-office of the district for such lands, in part satisfaction of the grant under which they were claimed, and to obtain his acceptance of the selections thus made. Various other proceedings were required by the act to secure a proper presentation to the land department of the United States of the lands thus purchased of the state; that is, of lands thus selected in satisfaction of the grant to her.
More possible references
> A 38-page book from 1869 about the company:
> Burlington_Cedar_Rapids_and_Minnesota
Yes, that's a fascinating look into the operation of a railroad company.
> A relative of mine was describing a question that had come up regarding the status of a strip of land in Iowa upon which the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Rwy. Co. had operated their line once upon a time, a line apparently originally constructed in about 1869 by the Burlington, Cedar Rapids and Minnesota Railway, eh?
For the record (since I suspect that many of us like to know how these little problems conclude), the next funny installment in this story is that my relative has, it turns out, access to an abstract of title from sovereignty covering the quarter-section in question formerly crossed by the railroad. He somehow neglected to mention that detail.
The abstract does cite the Act of 1845 as the basis of the State of Iowa's title. I haven't heard the details pertaining to the grant to the railroad yet.
