Camfield v. United States
Decision Date | 24 May 1897 |
Docket Number | No. 278,278 |
Parties | CAMFIELD et al. v. UNITED STATES |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
v.
UNITED STATES.
Page 519
This was a bill in equity, originally filed by the United States in the circuit court for the district of Colorado, to compel the removal and abatement of a fence erected and maintained by the defendants, whereby about 20,000 acres of public lands were inclosed and appropriated to the exclusive use and benefit of the defendants.
The bill averred, in substance, that the defendants Daniel A. Camfield and William Drury, with intent to encroach and intrude upon the lands of the United States in an illegal manner, and to monopolize the use of the same for their own special benefit, did on or about the 1st of January, 1893, construct and maintain a fence which inclosed and included about 20,000 acres of the public domain, that the effect of such inclosure was to exclude the United States and all other persons except the defendants therefrom, and that the lands thus wrongfully inclosed consisted of all of the even-numbered sections in townships numbered 7 and 8 N., of range 63 W., of the sixth principal meridian. The bill further averred that said townships 7 and 8 lie within the limits of the grant made by the government to the Union Pacific Railroad Company; that the defendants had acquired from said railroad company the right to use all the odd-numbered sections of land which lie within said townships 7 and 8, and outside thereof, immediately adjacent to the even-numbered sections lying within and on the margin of said townships; and that, in building the fence complained of, the defendants had constructed it entirely on odd-numbered sections, either within or without townships 7 and 8, so as to completely inclose all of the government lands aforesaid, but without locating the fence on any part of the public domain so included.
The subjoined diagram of one township will serve to illustrate the manner in which the fence was constructed so as to inclose the even-numbered sections. The fence is indicated by the dotted lines.
Page 520
6
5
4
3
2
1
7
8
9
10
1
12
18
17
16
15
14
13
19
20
21
22
23
24
30
29
28
27
26
25
31
32
33
34
35
36
The defendants admitted by their answer that they had constructed a fence so as to inclose all of the even-numbered sections in townships 7 and 8, substantially as set out above in the plaintiff's complaint, save and except that at each section line a swinging gate had been placed to afford access to so much of the public domain as was inclosed by the aforesaid fence. By their answer the defendants sought to justify the erection of the fence in question upon the ground that they owned all the odd-numbered sections in townships 7 and 8, and that they were engaged in building large reservoirs for the purpose of irrigating the land by them owned, and much other land in that vicinity. They averred that, in carrying out such irrigation scheme, they found it necessary to fence their lands in townships 7 and 8 in the manner above described. They also denied that they had any intention of monopolizing the even-numbered sections inclosed by said
Page 521
fence, or to exclude the public therefrom, and further averred, in substance, that the work in which they were engaged was of great importance and utility, and would redound to the great advantage of the United States and its citizens.
An exception was filed to the answer upon the ground that it was insufficient to constitute a defense to the bill. This exception was sustained (59 Fed. 562), and, as the defendants declined to plead further, a decree was entered in favor of the government, from which decree the defendants appealed to the court of appeals, which affirmed the judgment of the circuit court (32 U. S. App. 42, 13 C. C. A. 359, 66 Fed. 101, and 32 U. S. App. 123, 14 C. C. A. 228, 67 Fed. 17). Whereupon defendants appealed to this court.
James W. McCreery and C. W. Bunn, for appellants.
Sol. Gen. Conrad, for the United States.
Mr. Justice BROWN, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.
This case involves the construction and application of the act of congress of February 25, 1885, entitled 'An act to prevent unlawful occupancy of the public lands.' 23 Stat. 321. The first section of the act reads as follows:
'That all enclosures of any public lands in any state or territory of the United States, heretofore or to be hereafter made, erected or constructed by any person, party, association or corporation, to any of which land included within the enclosure the person, party, association, or corporation making or controlling the enclosure had no claim or color of title made or acquired in good faith, or an asserted right thereto by...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Water of Hallett Creek Stream System, In re
... ... STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD et al., Petitioners and Appellants, ... UNITED STATES of America, Claimant and Respondent; ... Sierra Club, Inc., Intervener and Respondent ... with such land precisely as a private individual may deal with his farming property." (Camfield v. United States (1897) 167 U.S. 518, 524, 17 S.Ct. 864, 866, 42 L.Ed. 260.) In Kleppe v. New ... ...
-
Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham
... ... states: ... '* * * a group, especially of persons or of vehicles containing persons, moving onward in an ... 312, 95 L.Ed. 280 ... However, though the Davis case was approved in the United States Supreme Court (167 U.S. 43, 17 S.Ct. 731, 42 L.Ed. 71), its assurance has been eroded by ... Camfield v. United States, 167 U.S. 518, 17 S.Ct. 864, 42 L.Ed. 260. It may be put forth in aid of what is ... ...
-
State v. Clausen
... ... Constitution, and the fourteenth amendment to the ... Constitution of the United States, which provide that no ... person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property ... extends to all the great public needs. Camfield v. United ... States, 167 U.S. 518 [17 S.Ct. 864, 42 L.Ed. 260]. It ... may be put ... ...
-
State ex rel. Collins v. Crescent Cotton Oil Co.
... ... and note; Laurel Fork R. R. v. Transportation Co., ... 25 W.Va. 325, and N. Swan v. United States, 3 Wyo ... 155, 9 P. 933; Leep v. Railway Co., 85 Ark. 415, 41 ... Am. St. Rep. 113, 25 ... the great public needs. Camfield v. United States, ... 167 U.S. 518, 42 L.Ed. 260 17 S.Ct. 864; Charlotte C. & ... A. R. Co. v ... ...
-
The Rocky Road to Energy Dominance: the Executive Branch’s Limited Authority to Modify and Revoke Withdrawals of Federal Lands From Mineral Production
...PUBLIC LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES LAW 108 (7th ed. 2014). 53. U.S. CONST. art. IV, § 3, cl. 2. 54. See, e.g., Camfield v. United States, 167 U.S. 518, 528 (1897) (discussing statutes permitting grazing and privatization of water rights on federal lands); see COGGINS ET AL., supra note 52, ......
-
THE EMERGING LAW OF OUTDOOR RECREATION ON THE PUBLIC LANDS.
...area). (457) U.S. CONST, art. IV, [section] 3. (458) Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529, 539 (1976). See also Camfield v. United States, 167 U.S. 518, 525 (1897) (holding that "[t]he general Government doubtless has a power over its own property analogous to the police power of the several ......
-
The Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Act.
...denied, 113 S.Ct. 184 (1992). (41.) Id. at 113-114 (citing Kleppe v. New Mexico, 426 U.S. 529, 538 (1976); Camfield v. United States, 167 U.S. 518, 525-26 (1897)). (42.) Id. at 114. (43.) Id. (44.) The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution provides that powers not expressly granted to the fed......
-
Questioning the rule of capture metaphor for nineteenth century public land law: a look at R.S. 2477.
...clause gives Congress authority to regulate activities on state or private land that will affect public land); Camfield v. United States, 167 U.S. 518, 523-29 (1897) (stating that Congress can regulate fences that enclose public land even though they are erected outside the federal land). F......