Campbell v. Muleshoe Cattle Co.
Decision Date | 31 January 1923 |
Docket Number | Civil 2013 |
Citation | 24 Ariz. 620,212 P. 381 |
Parties | THOMAS E. CAMPBELL, ERNEST R. HALL, W. J. GALBRAITH, C. W. FAIRFIELD and RAYMOND EARHART, Constituting the State Land Department of the State of Arizona, and RUDOLPH KUCHLER, State Land Commissioner, Appellants, v. MULESHOE CATTLE COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellee |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa. F. H. Lyman, judge. Judgment reversed and case ordered dismissed.
Mr. W J. Galbraith, Attorney General, Mr. George R. Hill, and Mr F. W. Perkins, Assistant Attorneys General, and Mr. John C Gung'l, Special Counsel, for Appellants.
Messrs Boyle & Pickett and Mr. D. B. Morgan, for Appellee.
The appellee, Muleshoe Cattle Company, applied to the state land department and the state land commissioner for the renewal of a lease that it, and its assignors, had held and enjoyed from the state, of three sections of land, to wit, 25, 26, and 35, township 12 south, range 21 east, in Cochise county, from April 20, 1916, for the term of five years; and, not being in default in any of the stipulations of the lease, contends it was entitled to a renewal thereof. The application for renewal was made upon a form furnished by the land commissioner, and was filed with the commissioner May 20, 1920. On June 29, 1920, E. A. Schilling filed with the commissioner an application for an original lease of the same sections. November 5, 1920, the commissioner approved the application of the Muleshoe Cattle Company, and thereafter, on November 11th, delivered to it for execution, properly filled out, a regular lease form for grazing lands, to expire June 30, 1925, or for five years, and fixed therein the sum of $19.20 per annum as the rental for each section.
November 5, 1920, Schilling, being dissatisfied with the rejection of his application and the allowance of the application of the Muleshoe Cattle Company, appealed from the decision of the commissioner to the state land department, and thereafter, on June 20, 1921, the members of the state land department held a hearing upon the conflicting applications. Later, April 5, 1921, the department rendered its decision annulling the decision of the commissioner and ordered that lease of said three sections be given to Schilling. From this decision of the state land department the Muleshoe Cattle Company appealed to the superior court of Cochise county. Subsequently, on September 17, 1921, the court dismissed the appeal upon the ground that chapter 166, Laws of 1919, giving the right of appeal, was null and void. And said order of dismissal, not being appealed to the Supreme Court, has become final.
November 12, 1921, the Muleshoe Cattle Company instituted this suit in mandamus in the superior court of Maricopa county, setting forth in its complaint in ample detail all the above facts, to compel the state land department and the state land commissioner to reappraise the rental value of the premises, in the event no reappraisement had been made, and to execute a lease thereof to it. The defendants filed an answer in which they specially demurred to the petition upon several grounds, and, also, for want of facts. The defendants set out in their answer as a defense, among others, facts concerning the use by Schilling of the said premises for grazing purposes prior to the date of leases to the Muleshoe Cattle Company's assignors, a hearing and investigation thereof by the department, and a determination of the facts in favor of Schilling. The plaintiff demurred to the answer of the defendants. The court overruled defendants' demurrers, and sustained the demurrer of the plaintiff to the defendants' answer. The defendants choosing to stand upon their demurrers and answer and refusing to amend upon motion of the plaintiff, Muleshoe Cattle Company, judgment was entered in its favor commanding defendants to reappraise the rental values of said premises and thereupon to make and execute renewal leases thereof to the plaintiff, and to tender and deliver such leases upon plaintiff's acceptance thereof by the payment of all lawful fees and rentals due or payable.
The defendants appeal. Their assignments involve a construction of certain sections of the Land Code: Chapter 5, Laws 1915, and amendments; the Enabling Act, § 28, p. 104, Civ. Code 1913; and sections 3 and 10, art. 10, of the Constitution.
Section 28 of the Enabling Act provides that none of the granted lands to the state shall be sold or leased "except to the highest and best bidder at a public auction" after advertising in newspapers for the time and manner specified therein; "provided, that nothing herein contained shall prevent said proposed state from leasing any of said lands referred to in this section for a term of five years or less without said advertisement herein required." Section 3, article 10, of the Constitution, re-enacts, or reaffirms, section 28 of the Enabling Act. Section 10, Id., is a mandate to the legislature to enact proper laws for the sale of state lands, or the leasing thereof, for terms not longer than five years, for the protection of bona fide residents and lessees, in such manner that such lessees, in case of lease to others, shall be paid for improvements by succeeding lessees the value of improvements and rights, and providing that actual bona fide residents and lessees shall have preference to renewal of their leases at a reassessed rental, fixed as provided by law.
The legislature, in conformity with the mandate of the Constitution, enacted chapter 5, Laws of Second Special Session of 1915, and in sections 30 and 31, chapter 166, Laws of 1919, and section 37, chapter 79, Laws of 1921, provided for the filing of applications with the land commissioner for leases, and the rights of those applying for renewals. Those sections are as follows:
The appellee bases its right to a renewal lease, or a new lease, upon the provisions of section 10, article 10, of the Constitution, and section 37, Laws of 1915. We state his contention in his own language:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tanner Companies v. Arizona State Land Dept.
... Page 1075 ... 688 P.2d 1075 ... 142 Ariz. 183 ... The TANNER COMPANIES and Clinton Campbell Contractor, Inc., dba Phoenix Brick Yard, Arizona corporations, Plaintiffs/Appellees, ... The ... Cf. State v. Jones, 94 Ariz. 334, 385 P.2d 213 (1963); Campbell v. Muleshoe Cattle Company, [142 Ariz. 193] ... Page 1085 ... 24 Ariz. 620, 212 Pac. 381 (1923); Ehle v ... ...
-
Kennedy v. Morrow, 5596
...requires the procedure contended for by plaintiff, is unwarranted. We have examined the cases cited by plaintiff, Campbell v. Muleshoe Cattle Co., 24 Ariz. 620, 212 P. 381; Boice v. Campbell, 30 Ariz. 424, 248 P. 34, and Murphy v. Howard Copper Co., 28 Ariz. 42, 235 P. 147, and do not find ......
-
Wyodak Chemical Co. v. Board of Land Commissioners of Wyoming
... ... act similar to ours. Manning v. Perry, (Ariz.) 62 ... P.2d 693; Campbell v. Cattle Co., 24 Ariz. 620, 212 ... P. 381; Boice v. Campbell, 30 Ariz. 424, 248 P. 34; ... ...
-
Banzhaf v. The Swan Company
... ... 2d ... 692; Wyodak Chemical Co. v. Land Commissioners, 51 ... Wyo. 265, 65 P. 2nd 1103; Campbell v. Cattle Co., 24 ... Ariz. 620, 212 P. 381; Boice Manning v. Perry, 48 ... Ariz. 425, 62 P. 2d ... ...