Six Cos. v. De Vinney
Decision Date | 15 February 1933 |
Docket Number | No. G-195.,G-195. |
Citation | 2 F. Supp. 693 |
Parties | SIX COS., Inc., v. DE VINNEY, County Assessor. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Nevada |
Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe, and Thelen & Marrin, all of San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff.
Gray Mashburn, Atty. Gen., of Nevada, W. T. Mathews, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Harley A. Harmon, Dist. Atty., of Las Vegas, Nev., for defendant.
Richard J. Coffey, Dist. Counsel, Bureau of Reclamation, of Los Angeles, Cal., and H. H. Atkinson, U. S. Atty., of Reno, Nev., amici curiæ.
Plaintiff by its bill of complaint prays for a decree enjoining defendant from proceeding with the enforcement and collection of taxes upon personal property of plaintiff and the demanding of payment of all poll taxes claimed to be due from its employees. Plaintiff contends it is not liable for such taxes for the reason that the said property is located within and said employees are employed and reside within the Boulder Canyon Project Federal Reservation, on which the state of Nevada is claimed to have ceded jurisdiction. Exemption is also claimed for the further reason urged that plaintiff is an instrumentality of the federal government. See Six Companies v. Stinson (D. C.) 58 F.(2d) 649.
Primarily, it is urged that the state of Nevada is without jurisdiction to enforce its laws over the area in question by reason of the establishment of what is styled the Boulder Canyon Project Federal Reservation, and compliance with the provisions of an act of the Legislature of the State of Nevada, approved February 24, 1921 (St. 1921, c. 23, p. 27) entitled: "An Act ceding the jurisdiction of this state over certain lands owned or to be acquired by the United States and repealing certain acts relating thereto." Nevada Comp. Laws 1929, §§ 2895-2898.
So much of the body of the said act as is material reads:
The Boulder Canyon Project Act, enacted by Congress and approved December 21, 1928 (45 Stat. 1057 to 1066, 43 USCA §§ 617 to 617t), by its first section (617) provides: "For the purpose of controlling the floods, improving navigation and regulating the flow of the Colorado River, providing * * * for reclamation of public lands and other beneficial uses, * * * and for the generation of electrical energy * * * the Secretary of the Interior, * * * is hereby authorized to construct, operate, and maintain a dam and incidental works in the main stream of the Colorado River at Black Canyon or Boulder Canyon adequate to create a storage reservoir of a capacity of not less than twenty million acre-feet of water and a main canal and appurtenant structures * * * connecting the Laguna Dam, or other suitable diversion dam, * * * with the Imperial and Coachella Valleys in California, * * * and to acquire by proceedings in eminent domain, or otherwise, all lands, rights of way, and other property necessary for said purposes."
By section 617e it is provided: "The title to said dam, reservoir, plant, and incidental works shall forever remain in the United States. * * *"
By section 617m it is provided: "This chapter shall be deemed a supplement to the reclamation law, which said reclamation law shall govern the construction, operation, and management of the works herein authorized, except as otherwise herein provided."
See Arizona v. California et al., 283 U. S. 423, 51 S. Ct. 522, 75 L. Ed. 1154, sustaining the validity of this act.
On May 26, 1931, there was filed with the Governor of the State of Nevada a plat designated, "Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Boulder Canyon Project Federal Reservation in Nevada." Attached thereto was an affidavit made by the Secretary of the Interior of date May 15, 1931, in part reading: "I, Ray Lyman Wilbur, Secretary of the Interior, having knowledge of the facts, do hereby certify that this diagram is a true and accurate representation of the area constituting the Boulder Canyon Project Federal Reservation of the United States in Nevada; that except as to certain lands in private ownership hereinafter referred to, the title to the area shown upon this diagram is in the United States, and that said area so owned by the United States is set apart and reserved by the United States for its use in the construction of the Hoover Dam, the Power Plant and the incidental works authorized by the Boulder Canyon Project Act of December 21, 1928 (45 Stat. 1057); and that said area so owned by the United States is described as follows:"
Here follows a description of the boundaries of the reservation and a reference to certain lands therein held in private ownership comprising six patented mining claims, and the right of way for Los Angeles & Salt Lake (U. P.) Railroad from a point on the west boundary of the reservation to the town of Boulder City and for station grounds at said city.
The boundaries of the said reservation, as delineated on the said plat, may be briefly described as follows: Beginning at a point in the center of the Colorado river approximately six miles southerly of the Hoover Dam site; thence west eleven miles; thence north three miles, twenty chains; thence east two miles; thence north nine miles, 60 chains; thence east twelve miles; thence south approximately one-half mile to the center of Colorado river; thence following the center of the Colorado river to the point of beginning. The area of the reservation is approximately 115 square miles.
The said plat also shows the course of the Colorado river; the location of the Hoover Dam to be constructed therein; the town site of Boulder City as being approximately seven miles southwesterly from the dam site; the L. A. & S. L. (U. P.) R. R. branch line to Boulder City; state highway paralleling same; United States Construction Railroad and United States highway from Boulder City to the dam site.
The plat was submitted for filing together with a letter from the Secretary of the Interior to the Governor, of date May 19, 1931, the material portions of which read:
To the letter of the Secretary, the Governor of Nevada replied by letter, of date of May 26, 1931, the body of which reads:
Defendants introduced in evidence a letter from Governor Balzar to Secretary Wilbur, of date of December 16, 1931, the body of which, in part, reads:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. and to Use of Baumann v. Bowles
...v. Welch, 5 F.Supp. 993; Scibilia v. Philadelphia, 279 Pa. 549, 124 A. 273; Silas Mason Co. v. Henneford, 15 F.Supp. 958; Six Companies v. DeVinney, 2 F.Supp. 693; v. Kansas City Tile & Trust Co., 255 U.S. 180, 41 S.Ct. 243; Society for Savings v. Coits, 6 Wall. 604; South Carolina v. Unite......
-
Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana v. Fontenot
... ... royalties on patents used including those owned by the ... contractor.' ... [198 La. 662] ... In the case of Six Cos. v. DeVinney, D. C., 2 F.Supp. 693, ... 699, the plaintiff sought to enjoin the County Assessor from ... collecting personal property taxes from it ... ...
-
Valley County v. Thomas
...and evidence of acceptance was not, as in the one before us, made an essential condition of cession. As was stated in Six Companies, Inc., v. De Vinney, supra, relinquishing jurisdiction should be strictly construed. A controlling reason for such construction is that it is a matter of the g......
-
State ex rel. Goshen Irrigation District v. Hunt, Secretary of State
... ... v. Baltimore, 195 U.S ... 375, 49 L.Ed. 242, 25 S.Ct. 50." ... It was ... contended without success by the plaintiff in Six Cos., ... Inc. v. De Vinney, 2 F.Supp. 693, a suit to restrain the ... defendant from collecting state taxes upon its personal ... property as well ... ...