Arlington Hotel Co v. Fant, 157

Citation49 S.Ct. 227,278 U.S. 439,73 L.Ed. 447
Decision Date18 February 1929
Docket NumberNo. 157,157
PartiesARLINGTON HOTEL CO. v. FANT et al
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Hartley Wootton, all of Hot Springs, Ark., for plaintiff in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 440-442 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Cockrill & Armistead, of Little Rock, Ark., and Murphy & Wood, of Hot Springs, Ark., for defendants in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 443-445 intentionally omitted] Mr. William Waller, of Nashville, Tenn. (Mr. Seth M. Walker, or Nashville, Tenn., of counsel), for Mrs. Elise Williams as amicus curiae.

Mr. Chief Justice TAFT delivered the opinion of the Court.

These are three suits brought in the circuit court of Garland county, Arkansas, against the Arlington Hotel Company, a corporation of Arkansas, in which the plaintiffs seek to recover for the losses they sustained, when guests of the hotel, in the destruction by fire of their personal property. The hotel was in Hot Springs National Park.

The complaints averred that the United States in 1904 acquired from Arkansas exclusive jurisdiction over Hot Springs Park, and that under the common law, which was there in force (Pettit v. Thomas, 103 Ark. 593, 148 S. W. 501, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 122, Ann. Cas. 1914B 726), an innkeeper was an insurer of his guests' personal property against fire. In 1913, the Arkansas Legislature enacted a law (Acts Ark. 1913, p. 934) relieving innkeepers from liability to their guests for loss by fire, unless it was due to negligence. The complainants contended that this act had no force in Hot Springs Park, as it was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, that the demurrers based thereon must be overruled, and that judgments should be entered for them. The defendant denied the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, and insisted that the demurrers to the complaint were good and that the defendant was entitled to judgment. There were two hearings. The circuit court first sustained the demurrers. This ruling was reversed on appeal by the Arkansas Supreme Court. 170 Ark. 440, 280 S. W. 20 [Fastcase Editorial Note: The Court's reference to "170 Ark. 440, 280 S. W. 20" is short for Fant v. Arlington Hotel Co., 170 Ark. 440, 280 S. W. 20]. Answers were then filed. The three cases were consolidated and went to a jury, and in accord with the final ruling on the demurrers resulted in verdicts and judgments for the plaintiffs, which were affirmed by the Supreme Court. 176 Ark. 613, 4 S.W.(2d) 7.

By section 3 of the Act of Congress of April 20, 1832 (chapter 70, 4 Stat. 505), while Arkansas was still a territory, it was provided 'that the hot springs in said territory, together with four sections of land including said springs, as near the center thereof as may be, shall be reserved for the future disposal of the United States, and shall not be entered, located, or appropriated, for any other purpose whatever.'

Arkansas was admitted to statehood in 1836 (chapter 100, 5 Stat. 50), but there was then no reservation of exclusive jurisdiction by the United States over the territory reserved from sale by the Act of 1832.

By Act of Congress of March 3, 1877 (chapter 108, 19 Stat. 377), it was made the duty of United States commissioners, after an examination of the topography of the reservation, to lay it out into convenient squares, blocks, lots, avenues, streets, and alleys, the lines of which were to correspond with the existing boundary lines of the occupants of the reservation.

Section 4 of the act provided:

'That before making any subdivision of said lands, as described in the preceding section, it shall be the duty of said board of commissioners, under the direction and subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, to designate a tract of land included in one boundary, sufficient in extent to include, and which shall include all the hot or warm springs situated on the lands aforesaid, to embrace, as near as may be, what is known as Hot Springs Mountain, and the same is hereby reserved from sale, and shall remain under the charge of a superintendent, to be appointed by the Secretary of the Interior: Provided, however, that nothing in this section shall prevent the Secretary of the Interior from fixing a special tax on water taken from said springs, sufficient to pay for the protection and necessary improvement of the same.'

The Army Appropriation Act of June 30, 1882 (chapter 254, 22 Stat. 121), provided:

'That $100,000 be, and hereby is, appropriated for the erection of an Army and Navy Hospital at Hot Springs, Arkansas, which shall be erected by and under the direction of the Secretary of War, in accordance with plans and specifications to be prepared and submitted to the Secretary of War by the Surgeons General of the Army and Navy; which hospital, when in a condition to receive patients, shall be subject to such rules, regulations, and restrictions as shall be provided by the President of the United States: Provided further, that such hospital shall be erected on the government reservation at or near Hot Springs, Arkansas.'

The hospital and accessories were completed about the year 1886. They originally covered 20 acres and have been enlarged from time to time since then. They are within the territory described in section 4 of the Act of March 3, 1877, supra, and within the territory over which Arkansas by Act of February 21, 1903 (Acts of Arkansas 1903, Act 30, p. 52), ceded exclusive jurisdiction to the United States. The language of the cession was as follows:

'Section 1. That exclusive jurisdiction over that part of the Hot Springs Reservation known and described as a part of the Hot Springs Mountain, and whose limits are particularly described by the following boundary lines, * * * all in township two south, range nineteen west, in the county of Garland, state of Arkansas, being a part of the permanent United States Hot Springs Reservation, is hereby ceded and granted to the United States of America to be exercised so long as the same shall remain the property of the United States: Provided, that this grant of jurisdiction shall not prevent the execution of any process of the state, civil or criminal, on any person who may be on such reservation or premises; provided, further, that the right to tax all structures and other property in private ownership on the Hot Springs Reservation accorded to the state by the Act of Congress approved March 3rd, 1901 (1891), is hereby reserved to the state of Arkansas.'

By the Act of April 20, 1904 (chapter 1400, 33 Stat. 187), congress accepted this cession and directed that the land should be under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, and all laws applicable to places under such sole and exclusive jurisdiction should have full force and effect therein:

'Provided, that nothing in this act shall be so construed as to forbid the service within said boundaries of any civil or criminal process of any court having jurisdiction in the state of Arkansas; that all fugitives from justice taking refuge within said boundaries shall, on due application to the executive of said state, whose warrant may lawfully run within said territory for said purpose, be subject to the laws which apply to fugitives from justice found in the state of Arkansas.' Section 1 (16 USCA § 372).

The act further provided that it should not be so construed as to interfere with the right of the state to tax all structures and other property in private ownership within the coundaries described.

Section 2 (16 USCA § 372) provided that the cession should constitute a part of the Eastern United States Judicial District of Arkansas, and the District and Circuit Courts of the United States for the District should have jurisdiction of all offenses committed within the boundaries.

The Arlington Hotel was constructed upon one acre of this tract thus subsequently ceded to the United States and accepted by it, and the hotel was operated for more than 50 years under lease from the United States until its destruction by fire on April 5, 1923.

The territory included in the cession forms only a small part of the original reservation by the United States from settlement under the land laws. It includes the springs and is about 1,800 feet long and 4,000 feet wide. There is also a larger Hot Springs reservation of over 900 acres, owned by the United States, but under the jurisdiction of Arkansas, and reserved from sale by the government for parks. The hospital buildings are about 1,000 feet from the site of the Arlington Hotel. By Act of Congress of March 4, 1921 (chapter 161, 41 Stat. 1407), the ceded tract was given the name of the Hot Springs National Park.

The contention of the defendant is that the cession was invalid, and that no jurisdiction was thereby conferred on the United States for the reason that the only power the United States has to receive exclusive jurisdiction of land within a state is to be found in the words of article 1, § 8, clause 17, of the Federal Constitution, as follows: 'to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings.'

The leading case on the subject is Fort Leavenworth R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U. S. 525, 5 S. Ct. 995, 29 L. Ed. 264. The question there was whether a railroad running into the military reservation of Ft. Leavenworth was subject to taxation by the state of Kansas. The United States had had exclusive jurisdiction over the land in question from 1803 by the cession of France until the admission of Kansas into the Union. For many years before such admission the land had been reserved from sale by the United States for military...

To continue reading

Request your trial
77 cases
  • v. State of Minnesota
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • March 25, 1946
    ...302 U.S. 134, 144, 58 S.Ct. 208, 214, 82 L.Ed. 155, 114 A.L.R. 318. 10 Compare Palmer v. Barrett, supra, with Arlington Hotel v. Fant, 278 U.S. 439, 49 S.Ct. 227, 73 L.Ed. 447. 11 Fort Leavenworth R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U.S. 525, 542, 5 S.Ct. 995, 1004, 29 L.Ed. 264: 'It is necessarily tempora......
  • James v. Dravo Contracting Co
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • December 6, 1937
    ...S.Ct. 995, 997, 29 L.Ed. 264; Palmer v. Barrett, 162 U.S. 399, 402, 403, 16 S.Ct. 837, 40 L.Ed. 1015; Arlington Hotel Co. v. Fant, 278 U.S. 439, 451, 49 S.Ct. 227, 229, 73 L.Ed. 447; United States v. Unzeuta, 281 U.S. 138, 142, 50 S.Ct. 284, 285, 74 L.Ed. 761; Surplus Trading Company v. Coo......
  • State ex rel. Bd. of Cnty. Com'Rs of Valley Cnty. v. Bruce
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • June 22, 1937
    ...States, 146 U.S. 325, 13 S.Ct. 60, 36 L.Ed. 991;Palmer v. Barrett, 162 U.S. 399, 16 S.Ct. 837, 40 L.Ed. 1015;Arlington Hotel Co. v. Fant, 278 U.S. 439, 49 S.Ct. 227, 73 L.Ed. 447. Where lands are acquired otherwise than by purchase with consent of the state, a reservation of the taxing powe......
  • United States v. Nebo Oil Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana
    • April 22, 1950
    ...United States acquired the property should be held to apply", and cites as authority for this proposition: Arlington Hotel Co. v. Fant, 278 U.S. 439, 49 S.Ct. 227, 73 L.Ed. 447; Williams v. Arlington Hotel Co., 8. Cir., 22 F.2d 669; Capetola v. Barclay White Co., 3 Cir., 139 F.2d 556, 153 A......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • State property tax implications for military privatized family housing program.
    • United States
    • Air Force Law Review No. 56, December 2005
    • December 22, 2005
    ...376 U.S. 369 (1964). (98) Id. at 374. (99) Id. at 372-373. See United States v. Unzeuta, 281 U.S. 138 (1930); Arlington Hotel v. Fant, 278 U.S. 439 (100) Humble Pipe Line Co., 376 U.S. at 375. (101) Visicon, Inc. v. Tracy, 83 Ohio St. 3d 211 (Ohio 1998). (102) Id. at 212. See OHIO REV. CODE......

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