First State Bank v. United States
Decision Date | 21 September 1937 |
Docket Number | No. 8473.,8473. |
Citation | 92 F.2d 132 |
Parties | FIRST STATE BANK OF THOMPSON FALLS v. UNITED STATES. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Murphy & Whitlock and J. C. Garlington, all of Missoula, Mont., for appellant.
John B. Tansil, U. S. Atty., and R. Lewis Brown, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Butte, Mont., and Charles S. Brothers, of Missoula, Mont.
Before DENMAN, STEPHENS, and HEALY, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal by the defendant bank from a judgment rendered in favor of the United States in the sum of $1,163.28. This amount represents the cost of extinguishing a forest fire originating on land to which appellant held the record title. Liability is predicated upon section 2778.2, Revised Codes of Montana 1935:
The case was heard on an agreed statement of facts. From this statement it appears that the land to which defendant held legal title was a small plot adjoining lands of the government, the Cabinet National Forest in Montana; that the plot covered by defendant's title included forest and timber material; that it had never been listed with a forest protective association as provided for in the statute quoted.
Without fault or knowledge on the part of the defendant, fire broke out on the land on August 28, 1931. It was discovered at 3 o'clock in the afternoon, and one hour later was reported to an agent of the plaintiff, Supervisor Abbott of the Cabinet National Forest. He immediately dispatched men and equipment to the scene. Until September 7, 1931, plaintiff's employees fought the fire, until it was extinguished.
The defendant bank did not learn of the fire until the day after it broke out. It then took no steps to control or extinguish the blaze.
Whether, on these facts, a landowner is liable under the statute to reimburse the United States for its expense in extinguishing the fire, is one of the questions raised by the parties in this case.
But at the threshold of our inquiry is another question: Was the defendant bank, at the time of the fire, the owner of the property upon which the blaze originated, within the meaning of the statutory clause: "The person, firm, or corporation on whose property such fire exists or from whose property such fire spreads, is hereby made responsible."?
The agreed statement of facts sets forth that on December 7, 1927, the defendant bank agreed to sell, and one Marguerite T. Christie agreed to purchase, the land in controversy for the sum of $2,500, payable in installments. This contract was still executory at the date of the fire.
Under the contract, the vendor (defendant) was to retain title until the full amount of the purchase price was paid. That the vendee, Mrs. Christie, was entitled to possession of the premises during the term of the contract is shown by the provision of the contract governing default on the part of the vendee: "It is mutually understood and agreed by and between the parties of this Contract that thirty days is a reasonable and sufficient notice to be so given to said second party, in case of failure to perform any of the covenants on her part hereby made and entered into, and shall be sufficient to cancel all obligations hereunto on the part of the said first party, and fully reinvest it with all right, title and interest hereby agreed to be conveyed, and the party of the second part shall forfeit all payments made by her on this Contract, and all her right, title and interest in all buildings, fences or other improvements...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Petition of S. R. A.
...Bissell, to be conveyed upon performance on his part." It is recognized that this is the general rule (First State Bank of Thompson Falls v. United States, 9 Cir., 92 F.2d 132, 134; First Nat. Bank of Wegener, S. C. v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 4 Cir., 27 F.2d 64, 67), and that it has existed f......
-
Arnhold v. United States
...721. Con: O.A.G. 1917-1918, p. 70; Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Oakley, 1925, 135 Wash. 279, 237 P. 990; First State Bank of Thompson Falls v. United States, 9 Cir., 92 F.2d 132; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Walker, 1888, 45 Ohio St. 577, 16 N.E. 475; Merrill Ry. & Lighting Co. v. City of Merrill,......
-
Motor Wheel Corporation v. Rubsam Corporation
... ... on in each of the other two counts, but that the first count set forth an agreed royalty, namely, two cents per ... Rubsam positively states that Harper, when taxed with using the clearance type ... In No. 1,576,226, the specifications state that "these indented portions 16 are designed to contact ... ...
-
Schlosser v. Norwest Bank South Dakota, N.A.
...a shared loss on some prearranged formula. Id. Sec. 3 at p. 242. Typical cases reciting this rule are First State Bank v. United States, 92 F.2d 132, 134 (9th Cir.1937) (applying Montana law) and Fellmer v. Gruber, 261 N.W.2d 173 (Iowa, 1978) (a case where the general rule did not apply bec......