State v. Montello Salt Co.

• Decision Date: 27 November 1908
• Docket Number: 1858
• Citation: 34 Utah 458,98 P. 549
• Court: Utah Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. MONTELLO SALT CO

98 P. 549

34 Utah 458

STATE v. MONTELLO SALT CO

No. 1858

Supreme Court of Utah

November 27, 1908

APPEAL from District Court, Third District; Geo. G. Armstrong Judge.

Action by the State against the Montello Salt Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

AFFIRMED.

Maginnis & Corn for appellant.

M. A Breeden, Atty. Gen., A. R. Barnes, Asst. Atty. Gen., and W D. Riter for the State.

STRAUP, J. McCARTY, C. J., and FRICK, J., concur.

OPINION

STRAUP, J.

It is alleged in the complaint that the plaintiff, the state of Utah, is the owner in fee and entitled to the possession of certain lands (fully described) situate in Tooele county, state of Utah; that the lands are saline lands, and were granted to the plaintiff by the government of the United States under the provisions of section 8 of the enabling act (Act July 16, 1894, c. 138, 28 Stat. 109), enabling the territory of Utah to enter the Union as a state; and that the defendant has wrongfully entered upon these lands, and has threatened to and will, unless restrained, remove therefrom valuable deposits of salt, to the irreparable damage of plaintiff. Judgment was demanded that the plaintiff be decreed the owner of and entitled to the possession of the lands, and that the defendant be restrained from entering upon them or from removing salt or other deposits therefrom. The defendant answered admitting that the lands are valuable only for the saline deposits found upon them, and alleging that underneath the soil the lands are covered with a deposits of salt varying from four to eight feet in thickness; that at the time of the approval of the enabling act the lands were so covered with soil and other earthy substances as to conceal their true character, and their real character was not discovered until November, 1906; that the plaintiff had selected and located and received grants to the full amount of the 110,000 acres of lands granted it under section 8 of the enabling act for university purposes; that the lands in question were not included in the selection or location so made by the state of Utah; that the legal title of the lands in question was in the government of the United States; and that the defendant was the equitable owner and entitled to the possession thereof by virtue of locations made by its grantors as saline lands under the placer laws of the United States. The court sustained plaintiff's demurrer to the answer. The defendant declined to further answer or plead. Judgment was therefore entered in favor of the plaintiff as prayed for in the complaint, from which the defendant has prosecuted this appeal.

Counsel for both parties assert that the controversy arises over, and the determination of the question wholly depends upon, the construction to be given section 8 of the enabling act. The section is as follows:

"That lands to the extent of two townships in quantity, authorized by the third section of the act of February twenty-one, eighteen hundred and fifty-five, to be reserved for the establishment of the University of Utah, are hereby granted to the state of Utah for university purposes, to be held and used in accordance with the provisions of this section; and any portion of said lands that may not have been selected by said territory may be selected by said state. That in addition to the above, one hundred and ten thousand acres of land, to be selected and located as provided in the foregoing section of this act, and including all the saline lands in said state, are hereby granted to said state, for the use of said university, and two hundred thousand acres for the use of an agricultural college therein. That the proceeds of the sale of said lands, or any portion thereof, shall constitute permanent funds, to be safely invested and held by said state, and the income thereof to be used exclusively for the purposes of such university and agricultural college, respectively."

The essential difference between the parties as to the meaning to be given this section arises over the clause, "that in addition to the above, one hundred and ten thousand acres of land to be selected and located as provided in the foregoing section of this act, and including all saline lands in said state." The appellant contends that the additional lands granted in that clause for the use of the university are only 110,000 acres of lands, and that whatever saline lands are claimed by the state must be selected and located by it and embraced within the 110,000 acres of lands, and that, inasmuch as the state had already selected and located 110,000 acres of lands for the use of the university, it is not entitled to the saline lands in question because they were not selected and not embraced within the 110,000 acres of lands which had been selected and located by the state for the use of the university. On the other hand, the state contends that the additional lands, granted in the clause for the use of the university are 110,000 acres to be selected and located by it, and, in addition thereto, all the saline lands in the state, and, inasmuch as all the saline lands were granted to it, no selection or location of them was necessary.

It may be said at the outset that the grant

"Should be neither enlarged by ingenious meaning, nor diminished by strained construction. The interpretation must be reasonable, and such as will give effect to the intention of Congress. This is to be ascertained from the terms employed, the situation of the parties, and the nature of the grant. If these terms are plain and unambiguous, there can be no difficulty in enforcing them; but if they admit of different meanings--one of extension and the other of limitation--they must be accepted in a sense favorable to the grantor, and, if rights claimed under the government be set up against it, they must be so clearly defined that there can be no question of the purpose of Congress to confer them. In other words, what is not given expressly, or by necessary implication, is withheld." (Leavenworth, etc., R. R. v. U. S., 92 U.S. 733, 23 L.Ed. 634.)

In section 12 of the enabling act, it is also provided that "the said state of Utah shall not be entitled to any further or other grants of land for any purpose than is expressly provided in this act," etc. Conceding therefore that the state is entitled to only such lands as have been expressly granted to it, nevertheless the enabling act is "to be considered sensibly, and with a view to the object aimed at by the Legislature." Gibson v Jenney, 15 Mass. 205. In determining the question the chief purpose is to ascertain the intention of Congress. Its intention is found "in the language actually used, interpreted according to its fair and obvious meaning." U. S. v. Harris, 177 U.S. 305, 20 S.Ct....