Show Sweeping Coal Land Decision D In n Federal C Court urt J Judge dge Marshal Marshall Not Only Holds That State Had No Right to Sel Sell Land Known to Con tam Coal But Tat That Subsequent Discovery of Coal Coni Wi Will Not Pre Prevent Prevent vent the Voiding of Such Ownership and Title Title J 1 A decIsion that to 10 ho ot of effect l ns rendered to lQ today do day by Judge JO l I A Manumit hll In ti the United Stal district t court when rhOn Ih n of defendants were KI stis In the thc cases of nt the United Slats the company et II uti und rind tho tiu plaintIff against the tho Voley Valley Coal company elli Ct iii Jt If 1 13 JUlo Judge Marshall O 10 when the tho cases cOle come to trial there w will be an overturning or of matters relating to coal coul landl lands In this Taking ag authority long patch rileI rules of o tito tho department of the tho In Iii the court holds to 10 the 1 lilt lint not net Ol only does t the o stab have no right to 1 dispose POi o of lands to 10 contaIn coat coal but It ti II le tic passes ald nuLl It develops that cOli coal actually underlies the land it II IS lot nt at the mo that stich u ns the case the by y Innocent Ia not only voidable ol but bul void UTAh UTU FU J LOSI lii In the ease against 3 the Utah Fuel luct the Iho suit sull was brought t to tle tithe for tor 11 un nc accounting or of coat cOlli hereto heretofore ioro fore mined from certain certa n lands and for forni foran ni an l injunction against the tho further ex e tracton traction ot of coal coni The forton Trust company compan of New York n a mortgagee wal was ma made e a defendant and both It I and tho Ulah Fuel company demurred lc specially lal to the tho bl bills the latel tatter 01 OuT the ho I ground that It Is a citizen ot of New Jer Jel se soy antI and that thai stilt can only be maln maii In that Tle Thio trust com coin demurs 01 on the grund ground that It Is Isit it o of NcI New York and can only bo be sued II In that state Bolh objections oro b Oil Ic tol t 1 ot of judiciary act of leW lre gale b bY Judge IAra I IUt 11 In none of roes does ho he ace j I for tor thop tho peti t ti ot of and te 10 hII his ln the tho 1 r do not n tn c deciO o can cau be effectual with to the ty within the of the In iii the bIli hut but on fulL no lef la may hl he d Th overruled ho In th of the tho States vet er SIS ails the tho Valley ale Coal SUit W brought to certIfications ot of 10 by the to the State or of Utah tOI fOl fraud mistake ot of fact nuLl of law to the lags en ending In ui and ec tho land mineral not hot a r Intended to be granted by the y to the state The rho Morton made nil an for tie purpose of objecting te ld the jurisdictIon of the court over It flue same point vas upon the tho theother other case and tit th was over overruled ruled on the hc same IMPORTANT The Tho Pleasant Coni company a general demurrer which challenges thu th or of the bill ThIs lii III the objection that brings out the tho most Important ruling ot of the cOurt The Tho first question to he be on titus this ot the case calle Is he whether under the grants of land t the tho State o of Utah hy by the act nel approved JUI July 16 In which the state was author authorIzed to select lands here again lito court coull considers many casos after atter which tie ho says department ot of hut Interior charged sith the tho of Iha matter the regulation has consistently State or of Utah no right to 10 select known mineral lands In of Ils it grants clUng citing no nn opinion by Asuit Atty Att in III State Stalo or of Utah O 0 OL L D J Judge gC Marshall again says saysA A different tic de the tho n of ot of the bone beno iliA intended by tIm of the gon oral and it II would leave the title Ullo ot Of land s ad grunted granted although title had been eoll trans erred to Innocent purchasers except a us Congress has since the tho date Or of the tho net act In question adopted a 11 limitation But Dut such could coull not have been the Intent oi of tue tho statute But DUt all as tha Iho other to the 1 complained or In eluding the state are oro to have been heen merc agents or ethic the above tOI fot the tho of the title In dell def defalice alice ot of law nuLl that Is charged charel with knowledge of the tho facts the title voidable I see Ree no noWa noway Wa way In which this dl distinction can nd ad the tho defendants So far as the demurrer Interposes the defense of the tho statute of limita limitations it II has been wIthdrawn without to 10 un an answer er raising the tho same defense Other reasons In sup support port or of the demurrer verc In hut but L 1 do not 1101 thud It nc to discuss them In detail Tho demurrer will ho be overruled Defendants In both eases ar are given ghen 20 o days III which to answer the to the complaint and the cases wilt will sub subsequently ho be tried In iii till tIle federal court or of this district u |