Miles v. Wells
Decision Date | 07 May 1900 |
Citation | 22 Utah 55,61 P. 534 |
Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Parties | ORSON MILES, APPELLANT v. HEBER M. WELLS, JAS. T. HAMMOND, BYRON GROO, WESLEY K. WALTON, ISAAC C. McFARLAND, T. D. REES, FISHER S. HARRIS, AS MEMBERS OF THE STATE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS, AND THE STATE BOARD OF LAND COMMISSIONERS, RESPONDENTS |
Affirmed.
Messrs King Burton & King, for appellant.
Hon. A C. Bishop, Atty. General, for respondent.
The plaintiff, by petition, applied to the court below to issue a writ of mandate, directed to the defendants, and each of them commanding them to refrain from selecting certain lands for the purposes of public sale or lease, and to receive the application made by the petitioner for the selection of said lands, and also to select the same pursuant to the petitioner's application, and to contract to sell the same at private sale to the petitioner for the sum of $ 1.50 per acre, and to receive the sum of 25 cents per acre tendered by the petitioner; and also commanding them and each of them to make no selection of said lands or any part thereof except pursuant to the application of the petitioner, and for the purpose of selling them to the petitioner at private sale pursuant to his said application; and also commanding them to show cause before this court at the court room thereof in the city of Salt Lake, and in the State aforesaid, on the 7th day of October, 1899, at 10 o'clock a. m., and to show cause, if any they have, why they have not done so. Your petitioner prays for general relief."
An alternative writ of mandate was granted and served upon defendants.
A demurrer was interposed to the petition by the defendants on the ground that the same did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and that the court had no jurisdiction of the subject-matter.
Without setting out in detail the allegations of the petition, it is sufficient to state that it is, in substance, alleged that the plaintiff, a citizen of the United States, and a resident of Cache county, in this State, on the 2d day of October, 1899, in due form, made a written application to the State Board of Land Commissioners, of which the defendants were the members, as follows, "for the selection by the said Board of the following described tracts of land, to-wit: (Then follows description by metes and bounds of various tracts of lands, aggregating 2,400 acres) which said lands were and still are public and unoccupied public domain of the United States and subject to selection by defendants for said state, in satisfaction of the grants made as aforesaid." And in said application the plaintiff requested and demanded said Board to select said lands, and to contract and sell the same to him at private sale at $ 1.50 per acre, that being the price fixed by the Board to be paid by persons applying for lands to be selected by the Board in satisfaction of the grants of public lands made by Congress to the State of Utah; that the plaintiff tendered to the Board twenty-five cents per acre for said lands to be applied on the first payment, and "demanded a contract with said defendants by which the balance of said purchase price should be paid in ten equal yearly payments," and that the Board refused to receive the money so tendered, and refused, and still refuses, to select said lands and contract and sell the same to the plaintiff at private sale, or at all.
Prior to the argument of the demurrer, the following minutes of said board, by agreement of the parties to the action, were added to and made a part of the petition:
Sec. 1, Art. 20, Const., provides that "All lands of the state that have been or may hereafter be granted to the state by Congress * * * shall be held in trust for the people, to be disposed of as may be provided by law."
The legislature passed an act (Ch. 64 of the Laws of 1899, p. 85), among the sections of which are the following, which have a bearing upon the questions involved:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rueda v. Utah Labor Comm'n
...§ 34A-3-103 (defining an occupational disease as "any disease").47 State v. Canton , 2013 UT 44, ¶ 28, 308 P.3d 517.48 Miles v. Wells , 22 Utah 55, 61 P. 534, 536 (1900).49 Cannon v. McDonald , 615 P.2d 1268, 1270 (Utah 1980).50 See State v. Bagnes , 2014 UT 4, ¶ 13, 322 P.3d 719 (looking f......
-
State v. Rasabout
...in the case of technical words and phrases, they must be construed according to their plain and ordinary meaning.”); Miles v. Wells, 22 Utah 55, 61 P. 534, 536 (1900) (“[W]here there is no ambiguity, the language must be taken as the expression of the legislature's intention, unless other p......
-
Board of Educ. of Granite School Dist. v. Salt Lake County, 17175
...Utah State Land Board, 26 Utah 2d 100, 485 P.2d 1035 (1971). See also State v. Gates, 118 Utah 182, 221 P.2d 878 (1950); Miles v. Wells, 22 Utah 55, 61 P. 534 (1900). Because Granite is prejudiced by the Treasurer's failure to comply strictly with the terms of the statutes, because the legi......
-
Spring Canyon Coal Co. v. Industrial Commission of Utah
...and phrases are construed according to the context and the approved usage of the language." Comp. Laws Utah 1917, § 5847; Miles v. Wells, 22 Utah 55, 61 P. 534. cannot well be said that Aspatia has lost both legs when, in fact, he has both legs. The fact that he has both legs belies the sta......