Alaska Consolidated Oil Fields v. Rains
Decision Date | 05 January 1932 |
Docket Number | No. 6366.,6366. |
Citation | 54 F.2d 868 |
Parties | ALASKA CONSOLIDATED OIL FIELDS et al. v. RAINS. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Winter S. Martin, Arthur Collett, Jr., and Harry S. Redpath, all of Seattle, Wash., for appellants.
Donohoe & Dimond, Anthony J. Dimond, and Thomas M. Donohoe, all of Cordova, Alaska, for appellee.
Before WILBUR and SAWTELLE, Circuit Judges, and WEBSTER, District Judge.
Appellee brought this action to foreclose mechanics' liens for work done by himself and others in connection with the drilling of oil wells upon "certain oil mining claims" described in the complaint. The trial court entered a decree foreclosing such liens, and appellants have appealed on the ground that all the lands described in the complaint and in the decree, with the exception of Chilcat No. 11 claim, were being operated by appellants under oil and gas prospecting permits issued to them under the Oil Leasing Act of Congress, approved February 25, 1920 (41 Stat. 437). It is claimed by appellants that "the title to the patented and permit lands aforesaid rests and did rest in the United States of America during all the time and times said work was performed or materials furnished." Appellants state the principal issue as follows: "Have defendants (appellants) such an interest in said oil claims under the oil and gas prospecting permits as to subject them to the alleged liens of the plaintiff (appellee)?"
It is clear that the decree of foreclosure would not be binding in any way upon the United States, and that the only interest which could be sold under the decree would be the interest of the appellants in and to the land in question. It would be necessary in order that the rights of the permittee be transferred to the purchaser at the foreclosure sale that the purchaser secure the consent of the Secretary of the Interior to the assignment. 30 USCA § 187. If the appellants have such an interest in the land as may properly be subjected to a decree of foreclosure for mechanics' liens for labor done upon the property, they cannot be heard to complain of the fact that a purchaser at a foreclosure sale would not thereby secure title to the permit, in the absence of the consent of the Secretary of the Interior and the acceptance by him of the purchaser as the permittee under the original permit. So far as the interest of the United States is concerned, it is fully protected by the Oil Leasing Act.
The claim of appellants seems to be that foreclosure of a mechanic's lien is not authorized by the Mechanic's Lien Law of the territory of Alaska. The claim is stated as follows:
The act of the territorial Legislature referred to (chapter 38, Session Laws of Alaska, 1921) is in part as follows:
* * *"
(Italics ours.)
By the provisions of section 7 of the act of 1921, above quoted, the territorial Legislature expressly provided that such liens shall be construed in accordance with the provisions of chapter 13 of the Laws of the territory of Alaska 1915, which provides as follows:
* * *"
* * *"(Italics ours.)
This act, like that of 1921, provides for notice being given by the owner to prevent the lien attaching as against his interest in the property: * * *"
In considering the effect of these two statutes, the history of locators of government owned petroleum land and other rights under the statutes of the United States should be considered. For that reason, we have hereinafter quoted at considerable length from a decision of this court written by Judge Ross in Consolidated Mut. Oil Co. v. United States, 245 F. 521. In view of the decisions cited by Judge Ross in that case, and hereinafter quoted, it may be said without further reference thereto that they clearly indicate that under the Alaska statutes of 1915 and 1921 a claimant would undoubtedly have a lien for work done upon such a placer mining claim.
It was held by this court in October, 1912, in Rooney v. Barnette, 200 F. 700, 710, that a locator of mineral land prior to discovery had a right of possession which he could convey to another. It was there stated by Judge Morrow:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
White v. Ames Min. Co.
...Kettler, 17 Idaho 321, 331, 105 P. 1059, affirmed in Swanson v. Sears, 224 U.S. 180, 32 S.Ct. 455, 56 L.Ed. 721; Alaska Consol. Oil Fields v. Rains, 9 Cir., 54 F.2d 868, 870; see, also, 68 L.R.A. 836, note c; Bergquist v. West Virginia-Wyoming Copper Co., 18 Wyo. 234, 106 P. 673, 683; Johns......
-
Tearlach Res. Ltd. v. W. States Int'l, Inc.
...United States is not being challenged, the United States need not be made a party to the litigation. In Alaska Consolidated Oil Fields v. Rains (9th Cir.1932) 54 F.2d 868 (Rains ), the plaintiff sued to foreclose a mechanics' lien for work done in connection with the drilling of oil wells. ......
-
Independence Placer Mining Company, Ltd. v. Hellman
... ... Sears , 224 U.S ... 180, 32 S.Ct. 455, 56 L.Ed. 721; Alaska Consol. Oil ... Fields v. Rains , 54 F.2d 868, 870; see, also, 68 L.R.A ... ...
-
Houck v. Jose
...and with Sections 35 and 36 of Title 30 U.S. C.A. See United States v. Sherman, 8 Cir., 1923, 288 F. 497; Alaska Consolidated Oil Fields v. Rains, 9 Cir., 1932, 54 F.2d 868, 870, 871. The photographic evidence shows that the boundaries were clearly marked with posts which indicated the sect......