Powhatan Causey v. United States
Decision Date | 06 March 1916 |
Docket Number | No. 197,197 |
Parties | POWHATAN E. CAUSEY, Appt., v. UNITED STATES |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. T. Marshall Miller for appellant.
Assistant Attorney General Knaebel and Mr. S. W. Williams for appellee.
This is a suit by the United States to recover the title to 157.77 acres of land in Ascension parish, Louisiana, patented to Powhatan E. Causey and by him transferred to James L. Bradford. While the land was yet public, Causey secured a preliminary homestead entry thereof by taking an oath, as was required, that he had not directly or indirectly made, and would not make, any agreement whereby the title which he might acquire would inure in whole or in part to the benefit of another. After the expiration of fourteen months he secured a final entry under the commutation provision of the homestead law by presenting proof that he had not sold or contracted to sell any part of the land, and by paying therefor in so-called scrip at the rate of $1.25 per acre. Pursuant to the final entry the land was patented to him, and he transferred it to Bradford. As grounds for the suit the bill charges that the oath and proof whereby the entries were secured were false in that, when Causey applied for the preliminary entry, he had entered into an agreement with one Wright, a clerk and agent of Bradford, whereby the title when acquired was to be passed to the latter; that both entries were made in pursuance of this unlawful agreement and were therefore fraudulent; and that Bradford took the transfer from Causey under the agreement and with full knowledge of the fraud perpetrated upon the government. It also is alleged that, in virtue of an arrangement with Bradford, Causey is claiming an interest in half of the land. With Bradford's CONSENT A DECREE WAS ENTERED AGAINST HIM. causey answered, denying the unlawful agreement and fraud, and the suit was referred to a master, who found the facts to be as charged in the bill. The findings were sustained by the district court, which entered a decree against Causey, and the decree was affirmed by the circuit court of appeals. 121 C. C. A. 663, 203 Fed. 1022.
Complaint is made of the findings. They were concurred in by the master and both courts, and therefore should be permitted to stand unless shown to be plainly erroneous. Washington Securities Co. v. United States, 234 U. S. 76, 78, 58 L. ed. 1220, 1222, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 725; Gilson v. United States, 234 U. S. 380, 383, 58 L. ed. 1361, 1362, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 778. Testing them by the evidence, we discover no plain error, but, on the contrary, that they are amply sustained.
That the title was acquired by substituting the minimum price of the land for a part of the required five years of residence and cultivation, as permitted by the commutation provision of the homestead law, is not material, for the agreement to obtain the land for the benefit of another disqualified Causey from acquiring the title in either mode. Bailey v. Sanders, 228 U. S. 603, 608, 57 L. ed. 985, 988, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 602; Gilson v. United States, 234 U. S. 380, 384, 58 L. ed. 1361, 1363, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 778.
The bill, while purporting to be brought in the name and for the benefit of the United States, and bearing the signature of the assistant United States attorney for the district, does not state or show that it is brought with the sanction of the Attorney General, and because of this it is objected, as it was in both courts below, that the bill should not be entertained, but dismissed. In the absence of a controlling statute, and there is none, it is essential to such a suit that it...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Corvallis Sand & Gravel Co. v. State Land Bd.
...232, 76 L.Ed. 469; Utah Power & Light Co. v. United States, 243 U.S. 389, 409, 37 S.Ct. 387, 61 L.Ed. 791; Causey v. United States, 240 U.S. 399, 402, 36 S.Ct. 365, 60 L.Ed. 711. We are brought thus to the determination of the question whether the State of Oregon, in holding and dealing wit......
-
United States v. Standard Oil Company of California
...Government itself is seeking to restore to its public domain property which it alleges never left it. See Causey v. United States (1916) 240 U.S. 399, 402, 36 S.Ct. 365, 60 L.Ed. 711. Even if we exclude the accounting features of the bill, the allegations of waste and continued trespass, co......
-
United States v. Mammoth Oil Co.
...be allowed any of them by the court, and a full accounting of the value of the oil extracted must be rendered. Causey v. United States, 240 U. S. 399, 36 S. Ct. 365, 60 L. Ed. 711; United States v. Trinidad Coal and Coking Co., 137 U. S. 160, 11 S. Ct. 57, 34 L. Ed. 640; Pan-American Petrol......
-
Rights-of-Way Across National Forests
...of it is concerned with the public interest. Utah Power & Light Co. v. United States, 243 U.S. 389, 409 (1917); Causey v. United States, 240 U.S. 399, 402 (1916). In Causey, the Court wrote that "the in disposing of its public lands does not assume the attitude of mere seller of real estate......
-
EQUITY AND THE SOVEREIGN.
...need not offer to return the consideration paid when it seeks to rescind a fraudulently induced transaction); Causey v. United States, 240 U.S. 399, 402 (1916) (rejecting the objection that "the bill cannot be maintained because it does not contain an offer to return the scrip received.... ......