Foltz v. Payne
| Decision Date | 06 December 1920 |
| Docket Number | 3355. |
| Parties | FOLTZ v. PAYNE, Secretary of the Interior, et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Submitted October 8, 1920.
Appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.
Patrick H. Loughran, of Washington, D.C., for appellant.
C. E Wright and Chas. D. Mahaffie, both of Washington, D.C., for appellees.
This is an appeal from a decree dismissing appellant's bill to restrain appellees from enforcing certain decisions of the Department of the Interior. The material averments of the bill are substantially as follows:
In 1910 Emil Grasswick made desert land entry of the land in controversy, and he and Rosie Grasswick, his wife, executed a mortgage thereon to Ebenezer G. Ranney. Later in that year and before the entry became perfected, Emil Grasswick filed a relinquishment. In 1911 Rosie Grasswick made desert land entry of the same land, in her individual right. On January 6, 1913, Mrs. Grasswick made final proof, and on January 22d following, final certificate was issued to her. On October 5 1914, the Department required Mrs. Grasswick to furnish evidence that a court of competent jurisdiction had recognized her ownership of the share of stock evidencing her right to water for the irrigation of the land entered by her. On October 5, 1914, Mrs. Grasswick filed a relinquishment of her entry, and thereafter Clementine A. Shaw filed a homestead application for the land. On April 29, 1916, the appellant, Leo L. Foltz, filed an affidavit of contest against this entry, and on May 27th, following, a relinquishment was filed by the entrywoman. Thereupon appellant, who then was in 'actual occupancy' of the land, filed a homestead application therefor.
Upon the relinquishment of Mrs. Grasswick's entry, Ranney, the mortgagee, claiming the right to be subrogated to her interest, was permitted by the Department to furnish proof of the validity of the water certificate held by her. On November 27, 1917, the Department, being satisfied with Ranney's proof, ruled that as mortgagee he was entitled to have issued a patent for the entry in the name of the entrywoman.
The sufficiency of this proof is challenged in the bill, but, under our view of the case, it is unnecessary to consider the question.
Ranney is not made a party to the bill, although it plainly appears that he is a party in interest. The court is asked to strike...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
EMC Mortg. Corp. v. Patton, s. 11–CV–976
...the distribution of property owned in part by a third party in that party's absence is the general rule”); Foltz v. Payne, 50 App.D.C. 155, 156, 269 F. 671, 672 (1920) (mortgagee was indispensable to action that would deprive mortgagee of equitable right in land); 7 Charles Alan Wright, Art......
-
Dougherty v. Keane, 5123.
...settled law that a court of equity will not enter a decree in a cause until all necessary parties are before the court. Foltz v. Payne, 50 App. D. C. 155, 269 F. 671; Hyman v. Rudolph, 52 App. D. C. 105, 281 F. 1017. A decree "should terminate and not instigate litigation." Caldwell v. Tagg......
-
Hyman v. Rudolph
...The bill is aimed specially at the destruction of his rights under the award. Roberts v. Bradfield, 12 App.D.C. 453; Foltz v. Payne, 269 F. 671, 50 App.D.C. 155; Brady v. Fall, 52 App.D.C. 43, 280 F. 1017. equitable power exists in furtherance of justice to remand a proper case, with instru......
-
Brady v. Fall
... ... Harner is an ... indispensable party, for the bill seeks to deprive her of ... rights to which she has been found entitled. Foltz v ... Payne, 50 App.D.C. 155, 269 F. 671. Having found that ... Mrs. Harner's rights were paramount, the Department did ... not determine the ... ...