Show LAND LAW OPINION attorney general bishop handed down ao an opinion today on the bueso queso gions submitted by the state board of lend land regarding the be law on settlers claims and the she status of an applicant for or school land who bad applied under a preference right and who was wa at the who time the owner of more than sores of land the quo tlona and answers are herewith given in tall full to the ibe state board of land commissioners comell sio ners salt lake biake city utah gentlemen in your favor of april ata you submit the following first whether or not inasmuch as a under section 17 of the land law lair gra grafting og all settlers claiming a prefer once right until july let 1897 within which to make their application alb this board can fi nally finally pass on a oy ay appilona app lloa iloa bious and of any school lands until alter after expiration of time above mentioned 31 second what would be the status of an applicant who had bad applied for school land under the he preference right and who was wae at the time of tagi the apall cation or on january 1 1 1894 she be ow nor of more than sores of land the land tor for which he ha applied also having boon been applied tor for by another settler eit lar 12 As to your first inquiry I 1 am of opinion that the board to is oot not legally from pawing upon pending A applications before the expiration of the time in which applications application for fee preference prete renoe rights are to be made should ane board decide to do so ao however and award the applicant the he right to purchase land under a prefer once enoe right application and ana afterward and before the lt let of july 1897 another person should make application lor jot the same bame laud land and ami mould clearly establish to the board that bowa he waa entitled thereto as an against the fire fiert applicant the former action of the board would have to be set aside and the corti flo ate of ale annulled toil this would undoubtedly result in oom corn and perhaps litigation which should be avoided about the ibe only way to avoid such would be for the boards board it if it has ba the legal right to do so 10 to postpone pet pone final consideration of those theae muggers mattera until after the limitation has baa expired in which aoh such applications should bould be made to wit july 1 1897 that the board has hag the power to deter action until this time I 1 think there can be no do question and it undoubtedly would be the cafer course to pursue is ib the premises premiere under your second query I 1 assume that the applicant referred to la Is one who had made application lor for the purchase of school lauds laude under the law jaw of 1899 1896 and who at the time of making his ar application and on jamari Is 1 1894 we wa the owner of more than acres of land jaad the question being whether the ap applies tion made bouer abe alft law which was wae clearly because oi 01 the fact that the abe applicant was the owner of more than one hundred anti and sixty acres could now be taken up anu considered by the board by reason 0 the ibe toot that the limitation had bad becu increased so 0 o that the entire holding including that applied tor for should abound noi no exceed stores the application as it stood under the old law of 1896 would abstractly speaking peaking be vulnerable to the technical objection that the party at that time owned more than one hundred and acres of landa land anu strictly trl otly construed might be held to be on this ground there is IB no BO legal reason leaion however why the fame application could not be under the law of 1897 and if ll it appeared to ane board upon the bear log ing thereof that bat the party on january lots ast 1st 1894 or at the time of making said aid application was waa not we the owner of mute mure than acres acree ot of land mo including luding the land applied lot 01 that he be was wag a ai actual and bons bona nde ado settler or occupant theroun wat that he be had improved the land in question or and that he be was wae on january let 1894 an actual settler geitler or occupant td thereon aroon he would be entitled under such acob application to purchase puro haae said ald land the fact that the abe same ame land had bad also alao been applied for by another bettler would not change the rule above stated elated inasmuch as ae there can be but one actual and bona bans fide settler on the abe same ame tract ot of land as provided by law and aad it would therefore follow that there could be no other settler bottler upon snob nob land who would be able to bring himself within the provisions of thelah the law relating to settlement and improvement pro so ao so as to entitle him to go the preference right to purchase the same ame the right of ose one party to purchase the ibs land lu question depends wholly upon the of his hia own proof to bring him within the provisions of the low law and not upon the weakness or look lack of strength of ef another whose application covers coven the same land therefore it if more than one person applies fil to purchase puro haae we be same tract of land 1 it IS clearly follows follow thai 9 upon th abe 0 hearing of their heir application the board must we termine as ai between them anu accord the right to purchase to one of them only there we aie two ways way in which such auch applications might be treated by ehr board beard first to notify all persons having mus ejob a as a would under the he law of 1896 be vulnerable to the objections above met eel oat cuts to ask leave of the board to them laehn the be law of second I 1 am of opinion that the board the power to regulate the ebule matter by we the adoption ol 01 a rule or resolution spread upon its if records by which it would consider all such applications as all having been defiled since the taking effect of the law of 1897 such snob a rule ot of the board bard properly adopted and spread upon its minutes would have the same effect as aa a re filing of each application by the parties thereto a no DO would be preferable to the first IDS icae much as it would simpli fly matters mattere and save to the board it a very great amount of labor and expense in ascer just what would come within the rule and the notifying of such euch applicants to artille abe same within the limitation of time proscribed prescribed by law I 1 have the honor to be very respectfully yours your A C BISHOP attorney At terney lane io raj |