Saxman v. Christmann

• Decision Date: 23 May 1938
• Docket Number: Civil 3967
• Citation: 52 Ariz. 149,79 P.2d 520
• Parties: JOHN SAXMAN, as Administrator of the Estate of CHARLES CRISMON, Deceased, Appellant, v. FRIDA O. A. CHRISTMANN, Individually, and FRIDA O. A. CHRISTMANN, as Executrix of the Last Will and Testament of WALTER FRED CHRISTMANN, Deceased, and SALT RIVER VALLEY WATER USERS' ASSOCIATION, Appellees
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

79 P.2d 520

52 Ariz. 149

JOHN SAXMAN, as Administrator of the Estate of CHARLES CRISMON, Deceased, Appellant, v. FRIDA O. A. CHRISTMANN, Individually, and FRIDA O. A. CHRISTMANN, as Executrix of the Last Will and Testament of WALTER FRED CHRISTMANN, Deceased, and SALT RIVER VALLEY WATER USERS' ASSOCIATION, Appellees

Civil No. 3967

Supreme Court of Arizona

May 23, 1938

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa. Howard C. Speakman, Judge. Judgment reversed and cause remanded with directions to dismiss the action.

Messrs Dougherty & Dougherty, Mr. Darrell R. Parker and Mr. J. A Riggins, for Appellant.

Mr. D B. Morgan, for Appellee Christmann.

Messrs Sloan, Scott & Green, for Appellee Salt River Valley Water Users' Association.

OPINION

ROSS, J.

Originally this was an action to quiet title to mining claims, located on the Tonto National Forest Reserve created by proclamation of the President on February 10, 1909. The plaintiff, John Saxman, as administrator of the estate of Charles Crismon, deceased, commenced the action. The defense to the action was that defendant Frida O. A. Christmann, individually and as executrix of the last will and testament of Walter Fred Christmann, deceased, had been given a "Special Use Permit" by the United States Forest Service to occupy and mine the ground plaintiff claimed. The defendant in her answer asked affirmative relief by way of quieting her title against plaintiff. The Salt River Valley Water Users' Association asked for permission to intervene and, the right to do so being granted, filed an answer to plaintiff's complaint.

The parties will be referred to as they were in the lower court.

On the day before the trial plaintiff voluntarily moved that his complaint be dismissed without prejudice, which motion was granted.

It will not be necessary to advert to the intervention any more for the reason that the intervener was given no relief and does not appeal.

The case was tried before the court without a jury on the answer of defendant, in which she prayed to have her title quieted, and plaintiff's general denial of such answer. Judgment was given to defendant quieting her title, and the plaintiff has appealed.

The questions propounded are several in number but many of them are collateral to the main case and of academic interest only. It is only necessary to decide one of the various questions and that is, did the court have jurisdiction to enter the judgment quieting defendant's title? This can be determined from the pleadings. The only right she has, according to the record, is that conferred by a "Special Use Permit" from the government, which, so far as material, reads:

"Permission is hereby granted to Frida O. A. Christmann, Executrix for the Estate of Walter F. Christmann, Tucson, Arizona, to use the following-described lands: S1/2 Lots 9 and 10, Sec. 4; S1/2 Lot 9 and the NE1/4SE1/ 4 Sec. 5; Lots 11 and 12, E1/2SW1/4, W1/2NW1/4SE1/4 and the SW1/4SE1/ 4 Sec. 4 T. 2 N., R. 7-E., Gila and Salt River Meridian, containing 285.65 acres, within the First Form Reclamation Withdrawal, for the purpose of necessary construction of such buildings, houses for employees, and all other equipment for mining and shipping from above lands, barium for commercial purposes, subject to the following conditions:

"21. The permittee accepts this permit with the understanding that it is temporary in character and may be revoked at any time if the area is needed by the Salt River Valley Water Users' Association, or such time as occupancy may otherwise be legalized, possibly by elimination from the Reclamation withdrawal, and location under the mining law.

"22. In the event that this temporary permit is revoked or cancelled, either for violation of the terms of the permit or on account of the land being needed by the Salt River Valley Water Users' Association, or upon abandonment by the permittee, all buildings and equipment to be removed and the grounds cleaned up to the satisfaction of the forest officer in charge, within sixty days from notice to perform same...."

The nature and legal effect of this instrument are to be determined by its wording and its evident purpose. It is a form used by the government to extend privileges to its citizens applying to occupy, for limited purposes, lands withdrawn from entry under the public land laws. It is so worded that it is not necessary to speculate as to its meaning. It authorizes the permittee "to use" the lands, and defines such use to be for the purpose of the necessary construction of such buildings, houses for employees, and all other equipment for mining and shipping from the lands barium for commercial purposes. Throughout the instrument the occupancy is referred to as a privilege or permission. The permit, we think, is a mere license, at most. It certainly is not a lease.

It is said in 17 Ruling Case Law 568, section 81:

"Whether an instrument is a license or lease depends generally on the manifest intent of the parties gleaned from a consideration of its entire contents."

Tested by this rule, there can be no question but that this permit is only a license to use the land. The rule applicable to this permit is well stated in 17 Ruling Case Law 570, section 83 as follows:

"A clearly defined distinction is drawn by the authorities between agreements which create a lease of the land...