Fevre v. Amonson

• Decision Date: 15 May 1905
• Citation: Fevre v. Amonson, 81 P. 71, 11 Idaho 45 (Idaho 1905)
• Parties: LE FEVRE v. AMONSON
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

81 P. 71

11 Idaho 45

LE FEVRE v. AMONSON

Supreme Court of Idaho

May 15, 1905

PUBLIC LANDS-CONTEST OF TITLE-MINING CLAIM-SQUATTERS-LAND DEPARTMENT-JURISDICTION OF STATE COURTS.

1. The state courts have no jurisdiction to determine the character of public lands as to whether it is mineral or not while the claims of respective parties are pending before the land department of the general government.

2. When the jurisdiction of the land department is once set in motion, and that tribunal is engaged in an investigation to determine the character of the land, the courts are precluded from trying or determining that question.

3. The decision of the land department on that question is conclusive on the courts.

4. Mere occupancy of public lands by a settler gives him vested right therein as against the United States, and consequently no right against any purchaser from them.

(Syllabus by the court.)

APPEAL from the District Court of Shoshone County. Honorable Ralph T. Morgan, Judge.

An action to quiet title of certain premises in the plaintiffs. Judgment for plaintiffs. Reversed.

Reversed and remanded. Costs awarded to appellants.

Henry P. Knight, for Appellants.

The authorities cited by appellants upon the points decided are found in the opinion.

W. W Woods, for Respondents, cites no authorities upon the points decided by the court not found in the opinion.

SULLIVAN J. Stockslager, C. J., and Ailshie, J., concur.

OPINION

SULLIVAN, J.

It is claimed by the respondents that this is an action in support of an adverse claim or protest, the respondents having settled upon the land as squatters and the appellants, with others, having located said land as a mining claim known as the "Never Sweat lode."

It appears from the record that on the twelfth day of May, 1902, the appellants filed in their own names and the names of two others in the United States land office at Coeur d'Alene, Idaho an application for patent for said lode claim, it being United States mineral survey No. 1724, situated in Leland mining district, Shoshone county. Notice of such application for patent was given by publication in the "Wallace Press," a newspaper published in said county; that during the period of publication, to wit, on the fifteenth day of August, 1902, the plaintiffs filed their adverse claim or protest in said United States land office, protesting against said application for patent. And it is alleged in the complaint that "thereupon all proceedings upon said application were stayed to await the final determination of the rights of the parties and that this action was instituted within thirty days from the time of the filing the said adverse claim pursuant to the provisions of section 2326 of the Revised Statutes of the United States."

It appears from the record that said adverse claim was in the nature of a protest, which protest was on October 26, 1902, under instructions from the commissioner of the general land office, dismissed by the register at Coeur d'Alene, and said protestants were notified of their right to appeal and no appeal was taken.

This action was begun on September 13, 1902, and a final decree was entered on June 3, 1904. The action was tried by the court without a jury and judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiffs decreeing to each of the plaintiffs certain portions or parts of the land included in the "Never Sweat lode," which land is described in the decree. Two errors are assigned: 1. The court had no jurisdiction to hear and determine this case; 2. The court erred in entering judgment against the defendants in favor of the plaintiffs.

It is contended by counsel for appellants that as the respondents did not appeal from the order of the commissioner directing their so-called adverse claim or protest to be dismissed, the trial court had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the case. It is also contended that the lands referred to were public lands, part of the public domain of the United States and that said court had no jurisdiction to determine questions of fact with reference to such lands while the claims of the respective parties were pending before the land department, and cites Marquez v. Frisbie, 101 U.S. 473, 475, 25 L.Ed. 800: Astiazaran v. Santa Rita Land & M. Co., 148 U.S. 80, 13 S.Ct. 457, 37 L.Ed. 376; Hays v. Parker, 2 Wash. Terr. 198, 3 P. 901; Humbird v. Avery, 110 F. 465, 471; Savage v. Worsham, 104 F. 18; Herbien v. Warren, 2 Okla. 4, 35 P. 575; Allen v. Pedro, 136 Cal. 1, 68 P. 99; Cosmos Exploration Co. v. Gray Eagle Oil Co., 104 F. 20.

In Lindley on Mines, second edition, section 108, it is stated. inter alia: "But that the courts have no jurisdiction to determine questions of fact with reference to the public lands while the claims of respective parties are pending before the land department, is axiomatic. With the orderly exercise of the functions of that department in administering the public land laws the courts cannot interfere. When, therefore, the jurisdiction of the land department is once set in motion, and that tribunal is engaged in the investigation which necessarily involves a determination of the character of the land, the courts are precluded from trying or determining this question." The authorities above cited fully sustain the text of said section 108.

In the...