193 F.2d 321 (10th Cir. 1951), 4306, Chournos v. United States

Docket Nº:4306.
Citation:193 F.2d 321
Case Date:December 20, 1951
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Page 321

193 F.2d 321 (10th Cir. 1951)




No. 4306.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

December 20, 1951

Rehearing Denied Feb. 1, 1952.

Page 322

Milton A. Oman, Salt Lake City, Utah (Milton V. Backman, Salt Lake City, Utah, on the brief), for appellant.

John C. Harrington, Washington, D.C. (Wm. Amory Underhill, Asst. Atty. Gen., Scott M. Matheson, U.S. Atty., Salt Lake City, Utah, and Roger P. Marquis, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., on the brief), for appellee.

Before HUXMAN, MURRAH and PICKETT, Circuit Judges.

PICKETT, Circuit Judge.

The plaintiff, as owner of a large tract of unfenced grazing land in Utah, brought this action under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1346(b), to recover damages resulting from the alleged improper administration of the Taylor Grazing Act, 43 U.S.C.A. § 315 et seq., on public lands contiguous to lands owned and controlled by plaintiff and within the limits of Utah Grazing District No. 1, otherwise known as Promontory Grazing District. This appeal is from a judgment in favor of the defendant.

The district, located in northwestern Utah, was created in April of 1935, and was divided into units for summer and winter grazing. Soon after its establishment in accordance with the Taylor Grazing Act and the Range Code, 43 C.F.R. 161, regular grazing permits to the full carrying capacity of the public lands were issued to the owners of base lands classified as dependent by use on such public lands. There were no public lands available for applicants in lower classifications. Within this district were lands owned by the Southern Pacific Land Company and referred to herein as railroad lands. The district and the company entered into a cooperative agreement whereby the unleased railroad lands would be administered by the district for grazing purposes as though they were public lands, with specified rentals or fees being paid to the company. The lessees of railroad lands were to retain the rights provided for in the Act and the Code to the same extent as any other owner or lessee.

The plaintiff had been engaged in the business of raising sheep for many years. His operations had been carried on 150 to 250 miles from the lands over which this dispute arose. He was a landowner and held regular grazing and exchange of use permits issued by the district within the area...

To continue reading