Ickes v. Development Corporation
Decision Date | 03 June 1935 |
Docket Number | No. 23,VIRGINIA-COLORADO,23 |
Citation | 295 U.S. 639,55 S.Ct. 888,79 L.Ed. 1627 |
Parties | ICKES, Secretary of the Interior, v. DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
The Attorney General and Mr. Harry W. Blair, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 640-641 intentionally omitted] Mr. Louis Titus, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.
The Virginia-Colorado Development Corporation brought this suit to obtain a mandatory injunction against the Secretary of the Interior requiring him to vacate certain adverse proceedings and his decision declaring certain placer claims of the plaintiff to be void. Motion to dismiss the bill of complaint was denied, and, on defendant's refusal to plead further, plaintiff obtained a decree which the Court of Appeals affirmed. 63 App.D.C. 47, 69 F.(2d) 123. This Court granted a writ of certiorari (292 U.S. 620, 54 S.Ct. 780, 78 L.Ed. 1477) in view of the question as to the construction of the Mineral Leasing Act, February 25, 1920, c. 85, §§ 1, 37, 41 Stat. 437; 30 U.S.C. §§ 181, 193 (30 USCA §§ 181, 193).
The bill alleged that in June, 1917, under section 2324 of the Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. § 28 (30 USCA § 28)), plaintiff located certain oil shale placer claims on mineral lands of the United States in Colorado and thereupon became the owner of the claims and entitled to their exclusive possession; that from that time until, and including, the year ending July 1, 1930, the annual assessment work required by the statute was performed on each of the claims; that during the year ending July 1, 1931, the assessment work was not performed and had not been resumed before September 4, 1931, or since, but that plaintiff then intended to resume work, and had made arrangements for that resumption which would have been had but for the action of defendant; that plaintiff had not abandoned, or intended to abandon, any of the claims, and that no charge to that effect had been made; that about September 4, 1931, adverse proceedings were initiated by the Department of the Interior, through the General Land Office, with the filling of a 'challenge' to plaintiff's title and right of possession and by 'posting such challenge on the said claims'; that the challenge was based on the sole ground that plaintiff had not performed the annual assessment work and that 'the United States resumed possession of said land.'
Plaintiff further alleged that there had been 'no relocation of any of the claims by any person since plaintiff's failure to perform the annual assessment work, and that there had been no application by anyone to lease any of the claims from the United States.' Plaintiff recited the answer he had made to the challenge, in substance, that, notwithstanding his failure to perform the described work, he had the right to retain possession of the claims and to resume work thereon 'at any time prior to a valid subsequent location of said claims'; but that the Commissioner of the General Land Office had held that the claims were null and void, and his ruling had been af- firmed by the Secretary of the Interior, whose decision had been promulgated declaring that the United States had taken possession for its own purposes, thus in effect decreeing a forfeiture.
Plaintiff then set forth the provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act of February 25, 1920, which authorized the Secretary of the Interior to execute leases of mineral lands, but contained an exception as to valid claims existing on the date of the passage of the act 'and thereafter maintained in compliance with the laws under which initiated, which claims may be perfected under such laws, including discovery.'1
1. The character and extent of the right which plaintiff acquired by virtue of its location of the mining claims, in 1917, are well established. Restating the rule declared by many decisions, we said in Wilbur v. U.S. ex rel. Krushnic, 280 U.S. 306, 316, 50 S.Ct. 103, 104, 74 L.Ed. 445, that such a location, perfected under the law, It is alienable, inheritable, and taxable. See Forbes v. Gracey, 94 U.S. 762, 767, 24 L.Ed. 313; Belk v. Meagher, 104 U.S. 279, 283, 26 L.Ed. 735; Manuel v. Wulff, 152 U.S. 505, 510, 511, 14 S.Ct. 651, 38 L.Ed. 532; Elder v. Wood, 208 U.S. 226, 232, 28 S.Ct. 263, 52 L.Ed. 464; Bradford v. Morrison, 212 U.S. 389 394, 29 S.Ct. 349, 53 L.Ed. 564. Under section 2324 of the Revised Statutes (30 U.S.C. § 28 (30 USCA § 28)), the owner is required to perform labor of the value of $100 annually, but a failure to do so does not ipso facto forfeit his claim, but only renders it subject to loss by relocation. The law is clear 'that no relocation can be made if work be resumed after default and before such relocation.' Thus, prior to the passage of the Leasing Act of 1920, the annual performance of labor Wilbur v. U.S. ex rel. Krushnic, supra.
There was authority in the Secretary of the Interior, by appropriate proceedings, to determine that a claim was invalid for lack of discovery, fraud, or other defect, or that it was subject to cancellation by reason of abandonment. Cameron v. United States, 252 U.S. 450, 460, 40 S.Ct. 410, 64 L.Ed. 659; Cole v. Ralph, 252 U.S. 286, 296, 40 S.Ct. 321, 64 L.Ed. 567; Black v. Elkhorn Mining Co., 163 U.S. 445, 450, 16 S.Ct. 1101, 41 L.Ed. 221; Brown v. Gurney, 201 U.S. 184, 192, 193, 26 S.Ct. 509, 50 L.Ed. 717; Farrell v. Lockhart, 210 U.S. 142, 147, 28 S.Ct. 681, 52 L.Ed. 994, 16 L.R.A.(N.S.) 162.
2. The Leasing Act of 1920 inaugurated a new policy. Instead...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bowen v. Chemi-Cote Perlite Corp.
...sense of that term * * *.' To the same effect are Duguid v. Best, 291 F.2d 235 (9th Cir. 1961); Ickes v. Virginia-Colorado Development Corp., 295 U.S. 639, 55 S.Ct. 888, 79 L.Ed. 1627 (1935); Cole v. Ralph, 252 U.S. 286, 295, 40 S.Ct. 321, 325, 64 L.Ed. 567 (1920); and Belk v. Meagher, 104 ......
-
United States v. Locke
...We cannot support [Wilbur v. Krushnic, 280 U.S. 306 [50 S.Ct. 103, 74 L.Ed. 445] (1930),] and [Ickes v. Virginia-Colorado Development Corp., 295 U.S. 639 [55 S.Ct. 888, 79 L.Ed. 1627] (1935) ], on so broad a ground. Rather, their dicta to the contrary, we conclude that they must be confined......
-
United States v. Standard Oil Company of California
...459-460, 40 S.Ct. 410, 412, 64 L.Ed. 659; Wilson v. Elk Coal Co. (C.C.A. 9, 1925) 7 F.(2d) 1112; Ickes v. Development Corporation (1935) 295 U.S. 639, 645, 55 S.Ct. 888, 889, 79 L.Ed. 1627; Sullivan v. Mammouth Oil Co. (C.C.A. 8, 1927) 22 F.(2d) 663. Two conditions delimit the exercise of t......
-
United States v. Eaton Shale Co., Civ. A. No. C.-4139.
...This uncertainty in the law as well as the questionable policy of Interior, were resolved in Ickes v. Virginia-Colorado Development Corp. 295 U.S. 639, 55 S.Ct. 888, 79 L.Ed. 1627 (1935). The Supreme Court held that the government could not challenge oil shale placer mining claims based on ......
-
CHAPTER 10 TITLE TO SEVERED MINERALS: A MARKETING PERSPECTIVE
...claim extends beyond the side limits of his lode location. See id. § 37.01[1]. [24] See, e.g., Ickes v. Virginia v. Colorado Dev. Corp., 295 U.S. 639, 644 (1935); Bagg v. New Jersey Loan Co., 88 Ariz. 182, 354 P.2d 40, 44 (1960); see generally 2 Am. L. of Mining II, supra note 21, § 36.04 (......
-
CHAPTER 7 FORFEITURE FOR FAILURE TO MAKE OR CONTRIBUTE TO ANNUAL EXPENDITURES FOR LABOR OR IMPROVEMENTS
...with a court decision. [12] Wilbur v. United States ex rel. Krushnic, 280 U.S. 306 (1930); Ickes v. Virginia-Colorado Development Co., 295 U.S. 639 (1935); Cadle v. Helfrich, 36 Ariz. 390, 286 P. 186 (1930); Whitwell v. Goodsell, 37 Ariz. 451, 295 P. 318 (1931); Hartman Gold Mining Co. v. W......
-
CHAPTER 14 CURRENT CHALLENGES TO OBTAINING EXPLORATION, MINING, AND ASSOCIATED RIGHTS TO PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LANDS
...work was being performed was not required to be filed with federal agencies. See, e.g., Ickes v. Virginia-Colorado Development Corp., 295 U. S. 639 (1935). The laws of most states provided for recording an affidavit of annual labor each year. These laws served, for the most part, to establi......
-
Recreation wars for our natural resources.
...on behalf of the United States to the valid existence of the claim has intervened."); see also Ickes v. Virginia-Colorado Dev. Corp., 295 U.S. 639, 646 (1935) (holding that even though claimants failed to perform labor for one year, the claims were "maintained" under the Mineral Leasing Act......