Hjorth Royalty Company v. Trustees of University

Decision Date08 January 1924
Docket Number1049
Citation30 Wyo. 309,222 P. 9
PartiesHJORTH ROYALTY COMPANY v. TRUSTEES OF UNIVERSITY
CourtWyoming Supreme Court

APPEAL from the District Court, Natrona County; JAMES H. BURGESS Judge.

Action by Hjorth Royalty Company against the Trustees of the University of Wyoming to quiet title to certain lands. There was a judgment for defendant and plaintiff appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

William O. Wilson, for appellant.

Suits may be brought against the State as the Legislature may direct. Art. I, Sec. 8 Constitution; the University pays out its own income, 471 C. S., and is recognized as a body corporate. Actions to quiet title may be brought by one in possession, 6234 C. S. Plaintiff must establish his own title, 32 Cyc. 1369. The demurrer admits the title and possession of Appellant; appellee cannot maintain an adverse claim to mineral land. U. S. Comp. Stats. 4658, ed 1918. A valid mineral location cannot be made on a prior existing valid location. Bergtuist v. Company, 106 P. 676. Lands granted by Congress to the University, vest in the University; Const. Art. VII, Sec. 15. The Constitution provides for a Board of University Trustees, who shall manage its lands and other property. Art. VII, Sec. 17. The Board is a body corporate, 470 C. S., clothed wtih power to hold manage, lease or dispose of, all property of the University. 471 C. S. The provisions of the Constitution and Laws of the State relating to the University and the management of its property differ from those relating to other State Institutions. If the land in question may be vested in the State for the benefit of the University, irrespective of plaintiff's claims, it is deprived of its property without due process of law. Inhabitants v. Sigma Alpha Epsilon, 74 A. 19; Phoenix Co. v. University, 197 F. 425. The University may be sued, Interstate Co. v Regents, 199 F. 509; Moscow Co. v. Regents, 113 P. 731. It is a body corporate. State v. Board, 9 So. 577; Reitson v. Com'rs. 120 U.S. 390; Louisiana College v. Keller, 10 La. 470; State v. Irvine 14 Wyo. 318, cited by appellee is not in point, the Agricultural College not being a corporation.

N.E. Corthell, for appellee.

The Court below sustained a demurrer to the petition on the ground that it was an attempt to sue the State. Plaintiff stood on its petition and judgment was rendered against it; this is a suit against the State which may not be maintained without specific authority of the Legislature, 36 Cyc. 911; Art. I, Sec. 8 authorizing the Legislature to provide for suits against the State is not self-executing, 36 Cyc. 913; a suit against a department of State government, or a Board, or Corporation created for governmental purposes, is a suit against the State, and cannot be maintained without its consent. 36 Cyc. 919. The University was established by Art. VII, Section 15 of the Constitution, and all lands granted to it by Congress were made to vest in the University. Sec. 17 of the same Article directed the creation of a Board of Trustees to manage its property. In State v. Irvine, 14 Wyo. 325, this Court held that Congressional land grants for the University were grants to the State, and this was affirmed in State v. Irvine, 206 U.S. 278. Similar decisions have been made in other States relating to various public institutions. Alabama Girls Indus. School v. Reynolds, 42 So. 114; Ahearn v. Ia. State Agri. Soc., 58 N.W. 1092; Williams v. Louisville Indus. School of Reform, 95 Ky. 251, 24 S.W. 1065; Okla. Agri. & Mechanical College, v. Willis, 6 Okla. 593, 52 P. 921. In other cases the point established shows the character of the institution as a State agency. Kan. State Agri. College v. Hamilton, 28 Kan. 376; Aud. Gen. v. Regents of Uni. (Mich.) 47 N.W. 440; Von Fael v. State, ex rel, Ansley (Nebr.) 96 N.W. 648, 649. The State holds the title. Hopkins v. College, 221 U.S. 636. If the land in question is property of the University it is State Land. The cause of action is not one arising upon a contract of the State University nor upon its tort, it is a direct attack upon the State's title to land. The Court is without jurisdiction of the cause.

The Idaho case involved the enforcement of contracts; the case of Arona Sae Soc. cited by Appellant, sought the enforcement of taxes and serves more to support, than to refute defendant's position. The statutory provision cited as authority for maintaining this suit appears to be offered as an inference of the capacity of the University to be sued and not as express authority. Express authority to sue State subordinate agencies appear in the Statutes, but none may be found authorizing suits against the University. Until the Legislature has provided authority for suits against the University no action of the kind may be maintained.

ARNOLD, District Judge. BLUME, J., and DISTRICT JUDGE P. W. METZ, concur.

OPINION

ARNOLD, District Judge.

The appellant was petitioner and the appellee was defendant below.

The suit was commenced to quiet title to the NE 1/4 of Sec. 32, Twp. 40 N, R. 79 W. 6th P. M. The petition is in the ordinary form of an action to quiet title; plaintiffs claiming a legal estate in said lands as an oil placer mining claim subject to the paramount title of the United States, and further stating that the defendant claims an estate or interest in said lands, but that the said claim is without any right or claim of right. A demurrer was filed to the petition on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction of the person of the defendant or the subject of the action, and that the petition did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The demurrer was sustained on the theory that the suit is in effect a suit against the state, which has title to the lands, and that no right to sue the state has been granted by the Legislature. The appellant refusing to plead further, judgment was rendered for respondent, from which this appeal has been taken. It may be doubtful whether the title or claim to the land adverse to that of appellant is sufficiently set forth in the petition to raise the question which furnishes the basis of the decision of the trial court. But it was conceded on the argument of this case that the land in question is part of the seventy-two sections of land mentioned in Sec. 8 of the Act of Admission of Wyoming, being land granted to the state for the benefit of a university, and which is part of the same land considered in the case of Wm. B. Ross, Governor, et al., vs. the Trustees of the University of Wyoming, decided this date. And the contention of appellant is that the title to land held under the said section of said Act of Admission is vested, not in the state, but in the Trustees of the University of Wyoming as a corporate body; that the land is mineral land and could not validly be acquired by said Trustees under said Act of Admission, and that the said Trustees as a corporate body may be sued. The case having been determined below in view of the facts and on the theory mentioned, and these facts being admitted here, we may waive any defect in the allegations of the petition, and determine the case as though these facts had been alleged therein.

The questions herein are whether the title to the lands granted under the provisions of the act of admission above mentioned is in the state or in the Trustees of the University, and whether the defendant in this kind of an action is entitled to the same privilege that the State of Wyoming could assert by reason of the Legislature not having made provision for such suits under the Constitution which declares:

"Suits may be brought against the State in such manner and in such courts as the Legislature may by law direct." (Article 1, Sec. 8, Constitution.)

The general rule appears to be that such provisions are not self-executing, and no suit can be maintained against the State until the Legislature has made provision therefor (36 Cyc. 913), and no consent having been given by the State it is evident that this suit could not be maintained against the State, therefore we need now only to consider the question whether this suit constitutes a suit against the State.

The attorney for the appellant in his brief and argument calls the attention of this court to the distinction between the powers vested by the Legislature in the said corporate body and those possessed by the managing agents and officers of the other state institutions of Wyoming. He refers to the construction which the trustees of the University place upon their powers by contending among other things that they have "absolute control over the funds" and "absolute control over the land, for their benefit, free from all dominion of the State Board of Land Commissioners." He cites a number of decisions from other states which he submits are in harmony with his contention that the appellant is entitled to maintain this action. He especially calls the attention of this Court to certain Idaho Cases, and particularly to the case of Phoenix Lumber Company v. Regents of the University of Idaho, (C. C.) 197 F. 425, and the case of Interstate Construction Co. vs. Regents of the University of Idaho, (D. C.) 199 F. 509.

In these Idaho cases it was sought to enforce contracts of the Regents of the University. There was no direct attack upon the title to lands as we find in this case.

The said Federal Court found, among other things, that it has been the policy of the State of Idaho in creating Boards and bodies to place them within the jurisdiction of the Court regardless of whether such boards and bodies were incorporated or not, and that:

"It has created and maintained other public institutions and essentially different in character from the University. There are, for business, the two State Normal Schools,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 cases
  • White v. State, 88-291
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • December 19, 1989
    ......State, 598 P.2d 796, 800-04 (Wyo.1979); Hjorth Royalty Co. v. Trustees of University of Wyoming, 30 Wyo. ... history then follows with the Utah Construction Company cases as questioning obligation to pay for the construction ......
  • Utah Construction Company v. State Highway Commission, 1773
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • March 13, 1933
    ......338, 23 Amer. and. English Enc. Law, 1st Ed. 83; Hjorth Co. v. Trustees, 30 Wyo. 309; Raubaugh v. State, 95. Ohio St. 513; ... direct." This provision is not self-executing. ( Hjorth Royalty Co. v. Trustees, 30 Wyo. 309, 222 P. 9), and the statute under which ......
  • Jivelekas v. City of Worland, 4499
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • February 2, 1976
    ......Northern Utilities Company, 73 Wyo. 287, 278 P.2d 605, and thereafter followed in Hall ... Page 426 . University of Wyoming, 9 the author observes: . '. . . '(T)he King ...152. . 13 Hjorth Royalty Company v. Trustees of University, 30 Wyo. 309, 222 ......
  • Harrison v. Wyoming Liquor Commission, 2347
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • February 11, 1947
    ......HARRISON, doing business as THE HARRISON COMPANY, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. WYOMING LIQUOR ... for the courts, but for the legislature. Hjorth v. Trustees of University, 30 Wyo. 309, 222 P. 9; 59 C. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT