United States v. Williams

Citation18 F. 475
PartiesUNITED STATES v. WILLIAMS and others, (NO. 932.) UNITED STATES v. WILLIAMS and another, (NO. 933.)
Decision Date23 November 1883
CourtUnited States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Oregon)

James F. Watson, for plaintiff.

Rufus Mallory, for defendants.

DEADY J.

These actions are brought by the United States against the defendants to recover the value of certain timber unlawfully cut, and removed from the public lands to a certain saw-mill in Springfield, Lane county, Oregon, and there sawed into boards and converted to the use of the defendants, to the damage of the plaintiff in the first case in the sum of $9,000, and in the second one of $6,000. In No. 932 it is alleged in the complaint that between April 1 and July 13 1883, there was cut and removed by the defendants therein from what would be, if surveyed, the N.E. 1/4 of section 22 in township 19 S., of range 1 W. of the Wallamet meridian, 900,000 feet of timber, of the value of $1,800; and in No. 933, between April 1, 1882, and July 13, 1883, there was cut and removed from the same tract 600,000 feet of timber, of the value of $2,000. The defendants Charles and William Williams, in case 932, answered jointly, admitting the cutting and removing by them to said saw-mill, as alleged, of 200,000 feet of timber; and said Charles, in case 933, answered, admitting the cutting and removing of 600,000 feet by him; and alleging in both cases that such cutting and removing was done by mistake as to the locality of said timber; that it was only worth 25 cents a thousand feet in the tree; and they bring into court in satisfaction of the damages thereby sustained by the plaintiff the sum of $50 in the one case, and $150 in the other. The defendant Pengra answered separately, denying the allegations of the complaint, and the actions were dismissed as to him. The cases were afterwards submitted to the court for trial, without a jury, upon an agreed statement of the facts or evidence in the case.

From this statement it appears that section 23 of said township is unsurveyed, but it has not been public land since prior to 1881, and that at the time the defendants cut the timber on section 22 of said township they had authority to cut and remove timber from said section 23; that said section 22 is public land, the west half of which was surveyed before this timber was cut thereon, and the line on the north side thereof was run between it and section 15, and sections 23 and 14; that on May 1, 1882, Charles Williams was and still is the owner of a tract of land-- the quantity of which is not stated-- adjoining the north-west quarter of said section 22, and that in said month of May said Charles 'took up a homestead claim' thereon, as he supposed, but which was, in fact, on the north-west quarter of said section; that said north-west quarter section and the land so taken for a homestead were fit for tillage when the timber was removed, and said Charles took the latter 'for the purpose of preparing the same for tillage, and for that purpose removed therefrom, in the spring and summer of 1882, 600,000 feet of timber, in good faith, for the purpose of preparing said land for tillage,' and in neither case was said timber cut with any intention of trespassing on the public lands or taking timber therefrom unlawfully; and that all of said timber was cut into logs on the land, and was worth 25 cents a thousand in the tree, and 75 cents a thousand in the log, and no more.

Under the timber act of March 2, 1831, (4 Stat. 472; section 2461 (Rev. St.,) the cutting or removal of any timber from the public lands, other than for the use of the United States, was absolutely prohibited, under a penalty of not less than three times the value of the timber and imprisonment not exceeding 12 months. But the courts treated the pre-emption, homestead, and mining acts subsequently passed as laws upon the same subject, by which the timber act was modified so as to permit the occupants of the public lands under these several acts to cut and remove timber therefrom for the purposes for which they were thus occupied, but not otherwise. And the timber so cut might be disposed of rather than destroyed. U.S. v. Nelson, 5 Sawy. 68.

On June 3, 1878, congress passed a special timber act (20 St. 89) for the Pacific states. The first three sections of this act provide for the sale of the unsurveyed public lands valuable chiefly for timber, but unfit for cultivation. Section 4 provides 'that after the passage of this act it shall be unlawful to cut, or cause or procure to be cut, or wantonly destroy, any timber growing on any land of the United States' in said states, 'or remove, or cause to be removed, any timber from such public lands with intent to export or dispose of the same,' under pain of punishment as therein provided; with a proviso that nothing therein contained 'shall prevent any miner or agriculturist from clearing his land in the ordinary working of his mining claim or preparing his farm for tillage, or from taking the timber necessary to support his improvements. * * * '

This proviso does not apply to any but lawful settlers on the public lands under the pre-emption, homestead, or mining acts with the intention of acquiring the title thereto. By this proviso, congress in effect declared, as the courts had held, that notwithstanding the general prohibition against cutting timber on the public lands, such settlers might cut timber thereon in the ordinary course of working a mine or preparing a farm for tillage. But in either case the cutting of the timber must be subordinate, if not merely incidental, to the mining or cultivation. The latter must not be used as a cloak or pretext for the former. U.S. v. Smith, 8 Sawy. 107; (S.C. 11 F. 487.)

The proviso does not license the cutting of timber for the purpose or with the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Lewis
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • 18 Julio 1892
    ...Gray, 382; Lindsay v. Railroad Co., supra; Nesbitt v. Lumber Co., 21 Minn. 491; U.S. v. Ball, 31 F. 667; U.S. v. Lane, 19 F. 910; U.S. v. Williams, 18 F. 475; Cases, 11 F. 81; Bly v. U.S., 4 Dill. 464. The defendants in error, having admitted that they cut the wood in controversy upon the p......
  • United States v. Douglas-Willan Sartoris Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 6 Junio 1889
    ...... dispose of to the best advantage possible; but he cannot go. outside of his improvements to cut and sell timber, though he. intend to acquire title under his claim. The Timber Cases, 3. McCrary's Cir. Ct. Rpts 519, 11 F. 81; U.S. v. Lane, 19 F. 910; U.S. v. Williams, 9 Sawy. 374,. 18 F. 475. See, also, U.S. v. Smith, 8 Sawy. 100, 11. F. 487. But where a settler is acting in good faith he may,. for the purpose of improvement, cut timber even before he. files his entry in the land office. U.S. v. Yoder, 5. McCrary's Cir. Ct. Rpts 615, 18 F. 372. And ......
  • United States v. Murphy
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District Michigan)
    • 1 Octubre 1887
    ...to cut and sell timber, though he intend to acquire title under his claim. The Timber Cases, 11 F. 81; U.S. v. Lane, 19 F. 910; U.S. v. Williams, 18 F. 475. See, U.S. v. Smith, 11 F. 487. But where a settler is acting in good faith he may, for the purpose of improvement, cut timber even bef......
  • Stone v. United States
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • 2 Octubre 1894
    ...of the case, and, in our opinion, correctly stated the principles of law that applied to such facts. U.S. v. Cook, 19 Wall. 591; U.S. v. Williams, 18 F. 475; U.S. Ball, 31 F. 668. The instruction 10, drawn by defendant, was erroneous in this: that it proceeded upon the assumption that the s......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT