Show Important Decision WASHINGTON May HThe Supreme Court rendered a decision the case of the United States appellant vs McLaughlin Mc-Laughlin et al from the Circuit Court of the United States for the northern district of California The suit was brought in this case by the government against the Central Pacific Railroad Company and McLaughlin et al as holders of patents for lands lying along the route of the railroad between stockton Stock-ton and Sacramento and claimed to be a part of the grant to the railro ad company com-pany The government claimed that patents were issued for this land as railroad land by mistake The mistake was that the land was within the exterior boundares of the Mexican grant known as Moquelokmas grant which formed tue basis of contest The railroad company contended that the eastern boundary was only intended to go to the footbills which would make the territory described containing nearly twice the amount granted Grants of that kind itwas explained certain quantity to be located in larger area are called floating grants ihe government i gov-ernment contended that the lands I witaiu the exterior boundaries of this grant wero reserved trom sale or other disposition being under examination in the courts and that the railroad grant did not take effect at any point within the exterior limits of this Mexican Mex-ican grant the railroad having been located across tho grant This was true with regard to public reservations of lands such as Indian or military reservations It was also true with regard I re-gard to Mexican grants of specific lands while they were under examination but the company contended that floating grants were not subject to this and hence obtained patents to the land in dispute The court decided that the eastern boundary of the Mexican grant was as the railroad company claimed it to be and therefore most of the lands outside of Us exterior limits aud as to them the patent was valid Second Sec-ond that the law of reservation did not apply to floating grants further than to satisfy the quantity granted and I therefore the remaining lands in dispute dis-pute were also free and the patent was good as to them also The decree of the court is affirmed and it is further ordered that this deCIee be entered mine pro tunc as of October 10 187 Cases 11 and 12 involved the same points as those set forth in the above and were decided similarly Justice Miller announced the following follow-ing order It is now ordered that all cases on the docket notdecided and all other business of tho term not disposed of by the court be and the same is hereoy couf nued until the next term of court > = |