United States v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

• Decision Date: 30 December 1954
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 3736.
• Citation: 126 F. Supp. 646
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Wyoming

126 F. Supp. 646

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 3736.

United States District Court, D. Wyoming.

December 30, 1954.

Perry W. Morton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Thomas L. McKevitt, Atty., Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., and John F. Raper, Jr., U. S. Atty., Cheyenne, Wyo., for plaintiff.

John U. Loomis, Loomis, Lazear & Wilson, Cheyenne, Wyo., O'Melveny & Myers, Louis W. Myers, William W. Clary, Warren M. Christopher and Charles H. McCrea, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant. Frank E. Barnett, New York City, W. R. Rouse, J. H. Anderson, Omaha, Neb., and Henry M. Isaacs, Los Angeles, Cal., of counsel.

KENNEDY, District Judge.

This is an action in which the United States, as plaintiff, seeks an injunction permanently restraining the defendant from using its right of way as a railroad for the purposes of removing gas, oil and minerals therefrom and quieting title to such minerals in plaintiff. The defendant answers in the form of a denial of the claim of plaintiff and sets forth certain affirmative rights claimed in its behalf.

At the trial the parties entered into an agreed statement of facts which eliminated practically all oral testimony except that presented on behalf of the defendant concerning its use of its right of way for the purpose of producing oil and gas as not interfering in any way with the operation of its railroad.

Reviewed briefly, the stipulation of facts set forth the jurisdiction of the court; the corporate organization of the defendant and that it is the successor to all the rights of the original grantee under a right of way over the public domain under the Acts of July 1, 1862, 12 Stat. 489, as amended by the Act of July 2, 1864, 13 Stat. 365, for railroad and telegraph line purposes, and that it has continuously exercised such right up to the present time; that defendant intends to engage in drilling operations leading to the removal of subsurface oil and gas underlying its right of way a few miles west of the city of Cheyenne and that the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission has approved defendant's application for a permit to drill on that portion of defendant's right of way; that defendant has not applied for or obtained a lease under the Act of May 21, 1930, 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 301-306, from the United States; and that the matter in dispute between the parties is as to the nature and extent of the property or estate which defendant holds under the Acts of Congress referred to.

In addition to the stipulation the defendant, over the objection of the plaintiff as to relevancy, introduced evidence tending to show that the drilling and operation of oil and gas wells on the right of way would in no way interfere with the operation of its railroad and telegraph line facilities. This evidence was admitted over the objection of the plaintiff at the time upon the theory that being a Court-tried case the evidence might be rejected if not found pertinent to the issue involved. After the trial the case was presented to the Court extensively in oral argument and at the conclusion, inasmuch as it had been intimated that briefs had been exchanged by the parties previous to the argument, it was suggested by the Court that such trial briefs should be submitted with such additional addenda as counsel might be advised within a time fixed by the Court. This order has been complied with and the matter is now before the Court for consideration.

It would seem that the particular issue here to be resolved heads into virgin legal territory, as counsel seem to agree that there are no cases which form a precedent as being on all fours with the case at bar. In some respects it would seem unfortunate that perhaps on account of the particular area involved being within the Wyoming District (the location being only a few miles west of the city of Cheyenne) the lot falls to the presiding judge of the United States trial court of such District to first attempt a solution of the problem. Probably the most efficient service that this Court may render is to expedite its journey into the higher Federal Courts so that the rights of the parties may be declared as speedily as possible. With this in view this Court will attempt to state its views and reactions only to the extent that adequate findings and conclusions may be based thereon.

It appears that the original grant to the defendant's predecessor was a right of way to the extent of two hundred feet in width on each side of said railroad where it may pass over the public lands, including necessary grounds for stations, etc. When the grant did not appear adequate to secure construction of the railroad an amended Act was passed in 1864 which continued the original grant as a right of way but also granted to the railroad alternate additional sections on each side in fee simple but reserving or excepting therefrom mineral rights or lands, with certain exceptions.

Scores of cases have been cited by counsel which in a sense touch only the periphery of the exact question here to be determined. It would seem rather unnecessary to discuss them in detail in this memorandum. Suffice it to say that counsel are to be commended for the exhaustive manner in which they have prepared their respective contentions and demonstrated their exhaustive research of the authorities in presenting the case to this Court.

Among the many cases so cited may be mentioned Northern Pacific Railroad Co. v. Townsend, 190 U.S. 267, 23 S.Ct. 671, 47 L.Ed. 1044, and Great Northern Ry. Co. v. United States, 315 U.S. 262, 62 S.Ct. 529, 86 L.Ed. 836, out of which counsel for plaintiff seem to derive some comfort from the language of these decisions. This is seriously questioned, however, by counsel for defendant inasmuch as the situation calling for a...