Original Railroad Patents

Other than contacting the Railroad (unless you have a great contact), what is the best way to find the documentation
of the original aquisition documents of the Railroad property from the US Government?
The Title Company didn't have much.

I have a call into the BLM right now, but don't really want to go through the BN Railroad office in Texas, most of you know why.

The Railroad property is GNRR now BNRR located in Eastern Washington state.

Thanks for any info

Are you SURE that it's "patented," and not a Right of Way (easement)?

Loyal

I've never seen a "patent" from the USA to any railroad company.  As far as I know, the railroads receive "Rights of Way" by Congressional grant.  There were different grants made for differnt segments of each railroad.  There wasn't any "patent" or any other conveyance document issued.  The Act of Congress was all that was required.  Most of the grants imposed a requirement  that the railroad company file a map of their route, which was entered in the federal register and typically shown on the historical index maps.  If the railroad wasn't created by Congressional grant, then the lands were acquired by the railroad company by deed. 

If you're refering to the checkerboard sections, they weren't patented either.  They were conveyed by the same Congressional Act as the right of way and were recorded in the Historical Index based upon the route map.

If you find any railroad "patents" I'd sure like to see a copy.

JBS

 Like JB (and I) indicated above, the FIRST thing you need to determine is EXACTLY what KIND of “Right-of-Way” you are talking about.

 

Most Federal Railroad ROW(s) after 1875 (General Right of Way Act of March 3, 1875) were in the form of EASEMENTS, not fee grants. These documents (maps etc.) are generally found in the BLM District Office, NOT in the State Office.

 

The earlier (1862-1871, and 1871-1875) where Grants in fee, that in the case of many of the 1862-1871 Grants, included additional lands (checkerboard sections etc.). There ARE “maps” (plats) associated with all of these entitlements, but they sometimes can be a hard to find. The specific Acts of Congress relating to each particular case should be pretty easy to find.

 

Loyal

Have you checked the county surveyor's office for strip maps?

The Master Title Plats are a great resource for this type of research.  They will list whether it was a patent or statute along with the references you need.  I get them on line here but not sure if that's the case everywhere.

Good calls on the County Surveyor Records (Mike), and the Master Title Plats (Dave).

 

A couple of caveats though.

 

The “strip maps” in the County Surveyor's Office MAY or MAY NOT tell you what you want (and NEED) to know (assuming they have any to begin with). These are sometimes Realignment Maps (post conveyance), or worse yet, Validation Maps that might NOT (in fact OFTEN DON'T) have the information that you need.

 

Master Title Plats (MTPs) are only half of the story (sometimes much less than half). You will need the HI[s] (Historical Indexes) in most EVERY case. As land passes out of the Public Domain, the GLO/BLM usually “erases” the Railroad (and other Right-of-Way) data off of the MTPs in those Sections (aliquot parts) that the Feds no longer maintain an interest in.

 

Of course “private” right-of-way instruments (fee and otherwise) should be in the County Recorder's Records, These are sometimes rather vague (50 feet either side of the tracks as constructed across Section X, with no other data).

 

Loyal

I don't think Wisconsin has MTP plats or HI's.  The primary records of the original conveyances for the earlier PLSS states would be in tract books (indexed by township) which reference the various documents which incumbered or conveyed the lands.

The state probably has a set of these somewhere, usually the same outfit that holds their field notes and plats.  Those would be the copies actually used in the local land offices. 

The DOI or Headquarters copy of the tract books resides in the BLM office in Springfield, VA. 

I would also suspect that they will show a reference to some formal document or list of what was granted.  The GLO was pretty meticulous in record keeping. 

Western states used these same type of records to create the MTP and HI's, but this was never done in the east.

- jlw

Well, I have the BLM sending me the Patent, which came off the Historical Index as mentioned above.

I guess I'll go from there. I'm not sure about it being Easements, seeing the GLO Survey was done in 1880
and the platting around it was done from 1890-1900. The old plats show railroad, just not real clear of the
boundaries. The Railroad came in between 1880 and 1890.

Thanks for the replies, We'll see what I find.

(1) The "easement crap" never seems to die. It does sound like you're dealing with an offshoot of the Act of 3-3-1875.
(2)Every state with a BLM office was issued a microfiche film copy of the Washington index for every land grant or patent the railroads got in that state circa 1975. (I just looked at Colorado's copy last Friday) ....The Washington (DC) Card Index for all railroad filings , now at Archives 2 in College Park MD was filmed and is on 2 rolls of film here, mostly in alphabetical order. All your Washington stuff is on it. I was also looking at stuff in MI, FL and GA.
(3) Your HI Indices are only as good as your state's BLM Headquarters people (CA scares me). There are mistakes and omissions - I'm dealing with one here in SE Colorado right now where GLO approved the plat in 1876, but it disappeared from the record. Tract Book entries are hit or miss on whether the rail lines were included. The GLO folks tended to be very good, even obsessive - but they were human too.
(4) GIS and Assessor maps around railroads tend to be WAG's. (ESRI even continues to do an intro course that uses a horribly flawed railroad example.)
(5) The County C&R may only have pieces of what you need and you still need a scorecard. If you don't have the DV-107 Land Schedule in hand before going to the C&R, hope your E & O insurance is paid up.
(6) If your local BLM office doesn't have it and the local NARA repository doesn't have it in RG 49, go to Archives 2.

 

Glad that you're here, you be da MAN!

 

However, I'm a little fuzzy on your “easement crap” comment above, could you clarify that a little?

 

The U.S. Supreme Court made the following comments in GREAT NORTHERN R. CO. v. U. S., 315 U.S. 262 (1942):

 

“The Act of March 3, 1875, from which petitioner's rights stem, clearly grants only an easement, and not a fee. Section 1 indicates that the right is one of passage since it grants 'the', not a, 'right of way through the public lands of the United States'. Section 2 adds to the conclusion that the right granted is one of use and occupancy only, rather than the land itself, for it declares that any railroad whose right of way passes through a canyon, pass or defile 'shall not prevent any other railroad company from the use and occupancy of said cayon, pass, or defile, for the purposes of its road, in common with the road first located'.1” [Emphasis mine]

 

In fact, they used the term “easement” a number of times in the decision.

 

The decision can be found here:

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=315&invol=262

 

If things have changed since 1942, please give a cite so I can include in my files (and re-format my brain).

 

Thanks,

Loyal

My brain is half past fried (stupid long day), but let's start here:

Show me in any of the Acts (1848, 52, 62,66,72,75 etc.) where it says "easement" .....it/they won't. Color of title between the acts is different as well.

You can perfect title on these. Never seen that with an easement. (color of title is a totally different animal)....The pre-1875 Acts progressively lessened what the railroads got in terms of ownership (title and pure quantity), but nowhere did it get demoted to easement.....they never perfected title on a large amount of the "checkerboard" they were offered either. After 1872, the checkerboard ceased. The history books are often politicised/ distorted  beyond reason if you hadn't noticed as well.

Railroad R/W is a unique animal to itself, totally different in meaning.

Lawyers have tried for years to lump all color of title on railroad R/W's as "easements". Doesn't work that way. ("Easement" doesn't apply to license, contracts or permits either...the term "easement" gets horribly distorted)

Funny, the railroads pay taxes on that grant land like they own it. (Grant R/W does not equate to Charter R/W either....different color again...And the Indiana Supreme Court has some very bizzarre views on what "Charter" does to fee ownership of railroad land)

IF the railroads got the land as grant R/W, the adjoiners are second (Roads) or third (NITU)out on abandonment. That drives the NARPO fanatics nuts.

That is not to say the railroads always handled disposition of grant R/W well either (witness Illinois Central's (ICG at the time) sale of several Alton branchlines in western Illinois)....

Here are pieces of what the BLM Patent document looks like.

files attached

 

Sweet!

 

Looks to me like you are definitely dealing with a “Land Grant” (aka Charter Act) situation that predates 1871.

 

Next you need some alignment data...

 

Loyal

Act of July 2, 1864 ( 13 U. S. Statutes at Large 356 (1864) & 16 Stat. at L. 378 (1870))

Have fun with the Hill Lines. NP is a slightly little different animal than GN....

The 1892 plat says Great Northern in the even Sections. The Patent (Congressional Act whatever you want to call it) does say
Northern Pacific, somewhere along the line they combined this line with other lines. I also have S F & N Railroad same line on a 1907 plat.

The fun begins

SF&N = Spokane Falls & Northern Railway Company

I have seen them 4-5 times in my wanderings through the GLO card index.

I have inadvertantley copied cards on them. Like:

________________________________________________________
65652-88
SPOKANE FALLS & NORTHERN RAILWAY CO
Approved June 22, 1888

From a point on unsurveyed land on the Columbia River, to a
point in Sec. 19, T36N, R38E, 4 Miles

Filed in Bundle 230
Case 144
_______________________________________________________


SF&N was Daniel Chase Corbin's baby 1887-1898 that was sold to GN via NP in 1898.

There were always two copies of the GLO filing maps, one sent to the local GLO office and the other to Washington DC. If BLM locally does not have it (usually due to lack of use),  it's probably at the local NARA regional facility with all the other GLO E-files (correspondence) and F-files (maps & attachments) at Seattle in RG49. The Washington copy is now at Archives-2 College Park, MD....

That case and bundle location can still help find the rascal.

IF the railroads got the land as grant R/W, the adjoiners are second (Roads) or third (NITU)out on abandonment. That drives the NARPO fanatics nuts.

What is a NARPO?

And I suppose I should know this, but what is "NITU"?

David Myhill:

IF the railroads got the land as grant R/W, the adjoiners are second (Roads) or third (NITU)out on abandonment. That drives the NARPO fanatics nuts.

What is a NARPO?

And I suppose I should know this, but what is "NITU"?

NARPO - National Association of Reversionary Property Owners.....IMHO, a bunch of legends in their own minds. If you've ever dealt with folks (general public and some clients) that claim to be "experts" on adverse possession, these people make the AE "experts" look mild by comparison. A University of Florida Law School professor recently raked a NARPO attorney (expert at everything, proficient at none) over the coals over some of her absurd assertions. Kinda amusing to listen to - It's still on tape at STB in EP-690 near the end in the closing comments.

NITU - Notice of Interim Trail Use .....The post 1976 abandonment rails-trails regulations in 16 USC 1247(d) that is supposed to be adhered to but frequently is ignored/ abused by trails groups and state/county/local level government. [(edit: see also 49CFR1152 )  49 CFR 1152.29 ; Overview: Abandonments and Alternatives to Abandonment ; Public Use Condition and Trail Use Request. ]

Mr. Tucker seems to be a big blow hard without too much to say substancially, but he is good at calling people and associations derogatory names.  In most forums, a person like this would be banned and sent to the pile below. NARPO has been in existance since 1985 and has testified before Congress and numerous state legislatures about the ownership of railroad rights of way; especially post 1875 federal right of way grants.  If Mr. Tucker would read the pertinent federal court cases on the 1875 Act, he would find the federal courts have ruled since 2005 that the federal government has no interest in federally granted rights of way once the land was patented, see 49 CFR 2842(1)(a), 1976, which was quoted in the Hash v. U.S. case in 2005 and also the Beres v. U.S. in 2005.