Majority — Waite C.J.
Syllabus
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA.delivered the opinion of the court.
This case cannot be distinguished in principle from St. Louis, Iron Mountain and Southern Railway Co. v. McGee, 115 U. S. 469 , decided at the present term. The suit was ejectment to recover the possession of certain tracts of land 'granted June 3, 1856, by an act of Congress to the State of Alabama to aid in building a railroad “ from Gadsden to connect with the Georgia and Tennessee line of railroad through Chattanooga, Wills’ and' Lookout Valleys.” 11 Stat. 17 , ch. 41. Sections 3 and 4 of this act are identical with sections 4 and 5 of the act involved in McGee’s case, and they provided that, if the road was not completed in ten years all unsold land should revert to the United States. On the 30th of January, 1858, the legislature of Alabama by a joint resolution transferred this grant to the Wills’ Valley Railroad Company, “ to be used and applied by said company upon the
The name of the Wills’ Valley Railroad Company was changed to Alabama and Chattanooga Railroad Company in 1868, and on the 2d of March, 1870, the company under that name obtained from the State a loan of State bonds to aid in the completion of its road. The road was afterwards finished so as to perfect title under the original grant. On the 8th of February, 1877, the State executed a deed to John A. Billups and John Swann, trustees, which purported to convey the lands in dispute, under a compromise agreement with the railroad company, to protect the interests of the holders of the State bonds which had been loaned to the company in 1870.
The claim of the plaintiff is that, as the lands in question were not fully earned when the sale was made under which Larmore holds title, and the road was not completed within the ten years fixed by the act of 1856, these lands, as well as those not sold at the end of the ten years, reverted at the end of that time to the United States, and passed again to the State under the act of 1869, which is to be construed as a new grant. We held otherwise in McGee’s case, and under that
Affirmed.