State v. Hyde

• Decision Date: 08 January 1918
• Citation: 88 Or. 73,169 P. 777
• Parties: STATE v. HYDE ET AL.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

169 P. 777

88 Or. 73

STATE v. HYDE ET AL.

Supreme Court of Oregon

January 8, 1918

In Banc.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lane County; G. F. Skipworth, Judge.

Suit by the State against F. A. Hyde, the Anaconda Copper Mining Company, and others. From a decree in favor of the State, the defendants named appeal. Modified.

This is a suit brought by the state of Oregon to cancel deeds executed by it to 1,440 acres of land in Lane county which were formerly a part of the grant made to the state for school purposes. The complaint on which the case was tried is substantially identical with that filed in a similar cause in the circuit court for Crook county, which we have just decided. The record fails to show any demurrer to the complaint. The defendants Hyde and Anaconda Copper Mining Company answered. Their answers were to the same purport as their answers in the Crook county suit. They affirmatively alleged that the United States was an indispensable party defendant. Plaintiff took issue with the affirmative allegations in these answers. The defendants H. C. Morris Company, Mary P. Morris, H. C. Burdick, and Carrie M. Burdick disclaimed. The decree adjudged the property in dispute to the state, and the defendants Hyde and Anaconda Copper Mining Company appeal.

A. C Shaw, of Portland, and E. E. Hershey, of Missoula, Mont., for appellants. Geo. M. Brown, Atty. Gen., and J. O. Bailey Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

McCAMANT J. (after stating the facts as above).

The evidence shows that deeds to 1,280 acres of the land in dispute in this case were made, executed, and delivered to the United States. The deeds ran in each case from the state's grantee. These deeds were accepted by the General Land Office, and selections based on the relinquishment of these lands were approved. So much of the controversy as relates to these lands cannot be litigated in the absence of the United States as a party. The reasons on which this conclusion is based are elaborated in the opinion in the Crook County Case handed down this day. 169 P. 757.

The General Land Office has never accepted deeds to the north half of the northwest quarter, southwest quarter of the northwest quarter, and lot 3, all in section 16, township 24 south, range 4 east of the Willamette Meridian. This property is covered by the application of George Wright. The evidence shows that this application was secured by one of the agents of Hyde and...