Bowen v. Chemi-Cote Perlite Corp.
Decision Date | 20 October 1967 |
Docket Number | No. 8497,CHEMI-COTE,8497 |
Citation | 432 P.2d 435,102 Ariz. 423 |
Parties | Arthur C. W. BOWEN, Appellant, v.PERLITE CORPORATION, a corporation, Appellee. |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Engdahl, Jerman, Butler & Estep, Phoenix, for appellant.
Kramer, Roche, Burch, Streich & Cracchiolo and Spector & Johnson, Phoenix, for appellee.
This case was commenced in the Superior Court for the County of Pinal by the appellee, Chemi-Cote Perlite Corporation, against the appellant, Arthur C. W. Bowen. An amended declaratory judgment was entered in Chemi-Cote's favor and Bowen appealed to this Court. The case was transferred to the Court of Appeals, Division Two, for decision and that court, in its opinion, affirmed the judgment of the superior court. Thereafter, an amicus curiae brief and reply was filed by the United States and by Chemi-Cote respectively. The case is here on a petition for review pursuant to Rule 47(b), Rules of the Supreme Court, 17 A.R.S. Chemi-Cote is the successor in interest to two lode claims of twenty acres each located on the public domain in 1944. The required discovery and location work to perfect the claims was performed and all annual assessment work or any alternative notices to hold mining claims without assessment work were filed for each year to the present time. Chemi-Cote and its predecessors in interest have been in continuous possession of said lode mining claims since their location and perlite ore has been mined therefrom since 1945.
Bowen is the successor to locators of two placer claims of one hundred sixty acres each, one of which was located in 1950 and the other in 1954. They include within their boundaries Chemi-Cote's lode claims and are based on the same perlite ore. All of the required discovery and location work was done to give the claims validity and the assessment work was done thereafter.
Prior to the commencement of this action, Bowen filed with the United States Bureau of Land Management of the Department of Interior an application for patent and conformed to the federal mining laws as to notice by posting, publication, etc. Chemi-Cote did not file an adverse claim within the sixty-day period prescribed by federal law, but after expiration of the period it did file a protest with the land department against issuance of a patent to Bowen. Departmental proceedings culminated in a decision dismissing the protest based on Chemi-Cote's failure to file an adverse claim. Chemi-Cote Perlite Corp. v. Arthur C. W. Bowen, 72 I.D. 403 (1965). Chemi-Cote thereafter filed its complaint in this action to quiet title to the two lode claims situated within the boundaries of Bowen's placer claims. Bowen answered and counterclaimed to quiet title to his placer claims and for damages for wrongful removal of perlite from his claims. The trial court asserted jurisdiction of the case and received testimony on the question of whether the mineral in question should be located as a lode or as a placer under applicable federal law. Finding that Chemi-Cote's lode claims were validly located with the knowledge of Bowen, that Chemi-Cote and its predecessors had been in continuous possession and performed necessary annual assessment work on its lode mining claims, that the cause of action was possessory and the court had jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter, and that the right of possession of Chemi-Cote to its mining claims was superior to that of Bowen, the court entered judgment for Chemi-Cote and against Bowen.
The first question raised on appeal was whether the trial court had jurisdiction of the subject matter of the suit. The Court of Appeals, in concluding that the issue of temporary possession was triable by the state court, determined that the validity of Chemi-Cote's lode claims was not at issue before the Land Department because section 37, 30 U.S.C.A. operated to exclude the lode claims from Bowen's patent application. It reasoned that since a perfected mining claim is property in the highest sense, it is not subject to disposal by the United States, and that once a property right is acquired, it would be violative of basic due process concepts to conduct a hearing on its validity without reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard.
Individual rights in public mineral lands can be acquired and held, and an absolute title obtained through the land office, only upon the terms and conditions prescribed by the mining laws of Congress. Lily Mining Co. v. Kellogg, 27 Utah 111, 74 P. 518 (1903); see also, Old Dominion, etc., Smelting Co. v. Haverly, 11 Ariz. 241, 90 P. 333 (1907). The procedure for obtaining title to mineral land by way of a patent application is set forth in section 29, 30 U.S.C.A. and section 30, 30 U.S.C.A. They read in part:
* * *'
Congress has not given the Interior Department jurisdiction to resolve disputes as to the right of possession. When a patent to mineral lands is applied for, however, the jurisdiction of the Department becomes exclusive, and can be stayed only by the filing of an adverse claim as provided by section 30. This Court in Warnekros v. Cowan, 13 Ariz. 42, 108 P. 239 (1910), said:
13 Ariz. at 45, 108 P. at 239.
In an adverse proceeding, the court may make one of the three determinations: That the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the claim; that the defendant-applicant is entitled to possession of the claim; that neither are entitled to possession. The judgment of the court is conclusive as between the rights of the competing mining claimants, but such decision does not preclude the Department of Interior from refusing to issue a patent. Clipper Mining Co. v. Eli Mining & Land Co., 194 U.S. 220, 24 S.Ct. 632, 48 L.Ed. 944 (1904).
It is so well established as to be axiomatic that a failure to file an adverse claim within the prescribed period operates as a waiver of all rights which were the proper subject of such a claim. See Turner v. Sawyer, 150 U.S. 578, 14 S.Ct. 192, 37 L.Ed. 1189 (1893); Healy v. Rupp, 37 Colo. 25, 86 P. 1015 (1906); South End Min. Co. v. Tinney, 22 Nev. 19, 35 P. 89 (1894). The following language of the Utah Supreme Court in Lily Mining Co. v. Kellogg, supra, is typical of the case law to this effect:
'It follows that in such statutory actions an allegation by the plaintiff that an adverse claim, in due time and form, showing its nature, boundaries, and extent, was filed in the land office, is traversable and necessary to confer jurisdiction upon the court to decide the controversy * * *, and that 'an action brought in support of such adverse claim must be based upon the right asserted in such claim, for the reason that it must be conclusively assumed that no adverse claim exists, except such as has been filed' (Marshal Silver Min. Co. v. Kirtley, 12 Colo. 410--415, 21 P. 492). * * * Under section 2325, Rev.St.U.S. (U.S.Comp.St.1901, p. 1429), when no adverse claim within the time therein prescribed is filed, it must be assumed that the applicant is entitled to a patent, and that no adverse claim exists. In Lavagnino v. Uhlig, 26 Utah 1, 71 P. 1046, this court held that the expression in the mining law, 'It shall be assumed,' must be construed to mean 'conclusively assumed." 74 P. at 519.
In discussing what is the proper subject of an adverse claim contemplated by sections 29 and 30, the United States Supreme Court in Iron Silver Min. Co. v. Campbell, 135 U.S. 286, 10 S.Ct. 765, 34 L.Ed. 155 (1890) said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bowen v. Sil-Flo Corp.
...established by either party, the jury Shall so find, and judgment Shall be entered according to the verdict.' (Emphasis added.) In Bowen v. Chemi-Cote, Supra, our Supreme Court 'In an adverse proceeding, the court may make one of the three determinations: That the plaintiff is entitled to p......
-
Silving v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, CV11–0676–PHX–DGC.
...holder may have a superior claim to title as to one party and an inferior claim as to another. See, e.g., Bowen v. Chemi–Cote Perlite Corp., 102 Ariz. 423, 432 P.2d 435, 443 (1967). Finally, title rights can be disaggregated, and the distinct rights of possession or of alienation can also s......
-
Tonnemacher v. Touche Ross & Co., 1
...U.S. 930, 99 S.Ct. 318, 58 L.Ed.2d 323 (1978); Bowen v. Chemi-Cote Perlite Corp., 5 Ariz.App. 28, 423 P.2d 104 (1967), rev'd, 102 Ariz. 423, 432 P.2d 435 (1967). 6 In Nogales, the court affirmed the dismissal of a federal antitrust claim for lack of jurisdiction. Nogales, 119 Ariz. at 554, ......
-
Geomet Exploration, Ltd. v. Lucky Mc Uranium Corp.
...of a patent, absolute title in fee simple remains in the United States. Bagg, supra, at 192, 354 P.2d 40; Bowen v. Chemi-Cote Perlite Corp., 102 Ariz. 423, 432 P.2d 435 (1967). Since this is a possessory action, the party with the better right is entitled to prevail. Rundle v. Republic Ceme......
-
CHAPTER 12 EXAMINATION OF TITLE TO UNPATENTED MINING CLAIMS -- A REFRESHER
...& Milling Co., 171 U.S. 55, 84 (1898). [199] Cram v. Church, 340 P.2d 1116, 1118-19 (Utah 1959). [200] Bowen v. Chemi-Cote Perlite Corp., 432 P.2d 435, 442 (Ariz. 1967). [201] See Cole v. Ralph, 252 U.S. 286, 295 (1920); see generally Keller, "Lode v. Placer? - Locating the Distinction," 31......
-
CHAPTER 7 EXAMINATION OF TITLE TO UNPATENTED MINING CLAIMS
...& Milling Co., 171 U.S. 55, 84 (1898). [199] Cram v. Church, 340 P.2d 1116, 1118-19 (Utah 1959). [200] Bowen v. Chemi-Cote Perlite Corp., 432 P.2d 435, 442 (Ariz. 1967). [201] See Cole v. Ralph, 252 U.S. 286, 295 (1920); see generally Keller, "Lode v. Placer? — Locating the Distinction," 31......
-
CHAPTER 14 RECENT DECISIONS PERTAINING TO THE RIGHT TO PATENT
...72 I. D. 403, GFS (Min) SO-41 (A-30404, Sept. 30, 1965); Bowen v. Chemi-Cote Perlite Corp., 5 Ariz. App. 28, 423 P.2d 104 (1967), rev'd 102 Ariz. 423, 432 P.2d 435 (1967). [31] See, e.g., 30 U.S.C. § 37 (1970). [32] See 30 U.S.C. § 29 (1970), Cf. 43 C.F.R. part 3870 (Oct. 1, 1974) and compa......
-
CHAPTER 16 NON-RECORD MATTERS AFFECTING TITLE TO UNPATENTED MINING CLAIMS
...et seq. [150] 1 American Law of Mining, §4.23 at 621 with extensive annotations at n. 5 and 6. [151] Bowen v. Chemi-Cote Perlite Corp., 432 P.2d 435 (Ariz. 1967). [152] 2 Lindley, supra, n. 12 §362 at 827. [153] Id. at 828. [154] Id., §365 at 859. [155] Id., §582 at 1296. See also Iron Silv......