Frolander v. Ilsley, 2609
| Decision Date | 08 December 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 2609,2609 |
| Parties | FROLANDER, v. ILSLEY. |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
James Munro, Sheridan, and Cecil K. Hughes, Sundance, for plaintiff.
Otis Reynolds, Sundance, for defendant.
This action involves the question as to whether or not a grazing lease for Section 36 and the S 1/2 of Section 25, Township 51 North, Range 64 West of the 6th P.M. in Crook County, Wyoming, was properly awarded by the State Board of Land Commissioners. Evelyn E. Ilsley was the holder of an expiring lease on this property, the lease expiring on February 1, 1952. On November 30, 1951, she applied for a renewal of this lease. In her application she stated her age, which was over 21 years; that she had no livestock; that there was stock water on the land for the month of May; that there were six miles of fence of the value of $800; that she was the owner of adjoining land, specifying part thereof. She attached a letter to her application in explanation, stating that she and her husband Harry P. Ilsley had had the lease of this land for a great many years; that they had a State Farm Loan, secured by part of their ranch (the Ilsley ranch), and that the expiring lease was held as collateral to this loan and the renewed lease would be held likewise; that she and her husband had entered into an installment sale contract with Claude E. Seeley and wife, running for the period of twenty years and that Claude E. Seeley and wife agreed to assume the payment of the State Farm Loan; that in case of default she and her husband would be obligated to pay the State Farm Loan; that under the circumstances it would be to the advantage of all concerned to have the lease renewed in her name. The applicant offered a yearly rental of $74 or about 7 1/2 cents to 8 cents per acre. On December 28, 1951, Bertha Frolander, hereinafter called the appellant, also applied for the lease on the land and stated that she had livestock consisting of some horses and 135 head of cattle and was the owner of some land; that there was stock water on the leasehold for the period of eight months; that there were 2 7/8 miles of fense on the land of the value of $172.50 for which she remitted a check. She offered to pay a yearly rental in the sum of $211.20, being about 22 cents per acre. On February 21, 1952, the Commissioner of Public Lands made his decision awarding the lease to Evelyn E. Ilsley. Thereupon and on March 17, 1952, Bertha Frolander appealed from the decision of the Commissioner to the State Board of Land Commissioners, alleging that the acceptance of the application of Evelyn E. Ilsley would mean a financial loss to the State; that Mrs. Ilsley misrepresented the facts as to stock water and as to the matter of fences on the land; that Mrs. Ilsley does not claim that she is applying for such lands for grazing purposes but merely to protect her financial interest, since the Ilsleys had sold their ranch. In answer to the statements in the appeal of Bertha Frolander, Mrs. Ilsley stated that she is the old lessee and applies for a grazing lease on the land; that she has paid the rental on the old lease and has not violated the provisions of the lease; that she is qualified as a citizen of the State for over 40 years and as such old lessee has a preferred right to renew the lease on said lands; that she tenders and agrees to pay whatever rental the Board of Land Commissioners would fix; that she and her husband are the owners of the lands adjoining the lands applied for in the lease; that Bertha Frolander owns no adjoining lands. She again mentioned the fact of the loan due to the state as heretofore mentioned andagain mentioned the contract of sale by herself and her husband to Claude E. Seeley and wife; that the land is used by the Seeleys for grazing purposes and running cattle thereon and that she, the applicant, has actual and necessary use for the lands for the grazing of livestock; that there is not sufficient stock water on the leased lands and that it is for the best interests of the State of Wyoming to give her a renewal of the lease according to her preference right.
The parties herein seem to have had a complete hearing before the State Board of Land Commissioners, being represented in person as well as by counsel and all the matters hereinbefore mentioned were fully considered as appears from the report of the secretary of the State Board of Land Commissioners set forth in the record before us. After the hearing of the matter, the State Board of Land Commissioners confirmed the decision of the Commissioner of Public Lands in awarding the lease to Evelyn E. Ilsley, fixing a yearly rental of 12 1/2 cents per acre. Claude E. Seeley also appeared at the hearing and stated that the Ilsley ranch consisted of some 4,660 acres which would be depreciated to the extent of fifty per cent if the lease to the lands should not be renewed. The contract between the Ilsleys and the Seeleys was introduced in evidence and the terms thereof will be mentioned hereafter.
There is no substantial conflict as to the facts in this case except only as to the amount of stock water which was on the land. The conflict in that connection arises out of the testimony introduced by Bertha Frolander in the trial of the case in the district court. Evelyn E. Ilsley did not introduce any evidence in her own behalf, although she testified after being called by appellant for cross-examination.
After the decision of the State Board of Land Commissioners, an appeal was taken to the district court of Crook County, Wyoming. After the introduction of testimony on behalf of Bertha Frolander, the court entered judgment confirming the decision of the Commissioner and the Board. Bertha Frolander thereafter will be referred to as the appellant and Evelyn E. Ilsley either as appellee or by her name. When the term Commissioner is used, it will refer to the Commissioner of Public Lands and when the term Board is used, it will refer to the State Board of Land Commissioners. The particular contentions of the parties herein will be discussed in the course of this opinion.
Before discussing the questions involved in this case, we should mention the fact that one of the counsel for appellant, in his oral argument of this case, stated that he realized that he had the 'laboring oar' in trying to persuade us of the correctness of his position, because of the fact that Mrs. Ilsley is the widow of Judge Ilsley, who, before his death, was our associate in this court. We are not devoid of the feelings of friendship common to mankind, and in case of grave doubt, those feelings might tip the scales in deciding a case. But we are not unmindful of the fact that we have, under the constitution, a mandate that without fear or favor, we must, and we shall, decide the cases that come before us according to the law of the land as near as human frailty permits that to be done, and we are quite certain that our former associate would not, if living, have us act otherwise.
We shall in the first place consider the error assigned herein that the trial court did not comply with the request of the appellant, timely made, to make findings of fact and conclusions of law. We examined this question with considerable care in Koon v. Sampson, 61 Wyo. 498, 159 P.2d 366 and Bruch v. Benedict, 62 Wyo. 213, 165 P.2d 561, and we held substantially that when all the evidence submitted to the district court is before us and we find, after examination of the evidence, that the judgment is correct, then the refusal to comply with the request above mentioned cannot be considered prejudicial error. That is substantially the case before us.
The statutory provisions pertinent in this case are embodied in Section 24-113, W.C.S.1945, reading in part as follows:
The former statute, § 91-113 R.S.1931, provided that the greater revenue to the state should be considered. That clause was left out of the present statute, although, of course, the greatest revenue might still be involved in the greatest benefit. But the change in the statute seems to show that the legislature meant to increase the discretion of the Board. Mayor v. Board of Land Com'rs, 64 Wyo. 409, 192 P.2d 403. The provisions particularly applicable herein are those in reference to the greatest benefit to the state and the proviso referring to the preference right of renewal of a party who has an expiring lease. Kerrigan v. Miller, 53 Wyo. 441, 84 P.2d 724, 729. The appellee herein has such expiring lease and it cannot be questioned that she is qualified as provided by the statute. She has paid the rental thereon when due and has not violated any of the provisions of the lease. In speaking of the preference right of renewal of one who has an expiring lease, we said in Kerrigan v. Miller, supra, as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Riedel v. Anderson
...has now declared a trust. It is also not necessary for us to decide whether this Court's use of trust language in Frolander v. Ilsley, 72 Wyo. 342, 264 P.2d 790 (1953), decided the issue or was dicta that merely used a colloquial expression to describe the school III. Constitutionality of L......
-
Mahoney v. L. L. Sheep Co.
...P.2d 403, 195 P.2d 752; Hoy v. Frederick, 70 Wyo. 496, 252 P.2d 112; Stauffer v. Johnson, 71 Wyo. 386, 259 P.2d 753; and Frolander v. Ilsley, 72 Wyo. 342, 264 P.2d 790. ...
-
Office of State Lands v. Mule Shoe Ranch Inc.
...should be considered in passing upon applications for renewal of expiring leases.” Id. Similarly, the Court in Frolander v. Ilsley, 72 Wyo. 342, 365, 264 P.2d 790, 799 (Wyo.1953) stated: School lands are, it is true, held in trust by the state, and the trust must be administered wisely and ......