Stoddard v. United States
| Citation | 214 F. 566 |
| Decision Date | 11 May 1914 |
| Docket Number | 3951. |
| Parties | STODDARD v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit) |
W. F Burnett, of Dickinson, N.D., for appellant.
Edward Engerud, of Fargo, N.D. (M. A. Hildreth, of Fargo, N.D., on the brief), for appellee.
Before HOOK, ADAMS, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
ADAMS Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).
The facts as disclosed by the record are substantially these:
The defendant was the owner by mesne conveyance from the Northern Pacific Railroad Company, the original grantee from the government, of all the odd-numbered sections in township 138 and was the lessee and had the right of possession of two other sections of land in that township. The even-numbered sections, embracing about 7,000 acres of land, were still unoccupied public lands.
In the year 1912, before the defendant built the fence complained of, the condition of things was this: A fence or series of fences extended from section 36 in the southeast corner of the township along its southern boundary line and to its southwest corner, and the defendant owned or controlled substantially all the lands adjacent to and extending along the northern line of the township. Section 1 in the northeast corner of the township was inclosed by a fence, and on section 24, near the middle of the eastern boundary line of the township, there was a homestead entry inclosed by a fence. The defendant was lessee from the state of North Dakota of section 36 in the southeast corner of the township.
In that year the defendant put up a barbed-wire fence, commencing near the southwest corner of section 1, running thence in a southerly direction near to the eastern line of section 11 to the side of a precipitous butte located about midway the eastern line of the section; thence southerly from the southern edge of this butte to the southeast corner of section 11, where it connected with another butte; thence from the eastern side of the last-mentioned butte, along and near to the northern line of section 13, to the eastern boundary line of the township; thence southerly along this eastern boundary line to a fence surrounding a homestead entry in the northeast quarter of section 24; from about the southwest corner of this homestead entry a crescent-shaped butte extended in a southeasterly direction to a point near to the northeast corner of section 25; from the south end of this butte the defendant constructed his fence to the northeast corner of section 25, thence southerly along the eastern line of that section to a gully, thence from the south end of the gully along or near to the eastern boundary line of section 36, to a connection with the fence constructed along the southern boundary line of the township.
The defendant's testimony tended to show that he left certain openings in the fence, and he claims that these openings afforded adequate means for the passage of stock into the township; but the government contends that the fences were so constructed in connection with precipitous buttes and impassable gullies just referred to, as to create an effective obstruction to the free range of stock from the township lying immediately east and thereby to appropriate the grazing privileges of township 138 exclusively to the use of the defendant.
Did the fence as constructed constitute an obstruction within the meaning of the law? Section 3 of the act of February 25, 1885, provides:
'That no person, by force, threats, intimidation, or by any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. ex rel. Bergen v. Lawrence
...may not be denied access to federal lands in the Union Pacific checkerboard. Even more instructive is the language of Stoddard v. United States, 214 F. 566 (8th Cir.1914). In Stoddard, as here, the defendant argued that section 3 of the UIA referred to "the obstruction of free passage or tr......
-
Hatch Bros. Company v. Black
... ... 530; Thomas v. U. S. 136 F. 159.) ... Intent is not an ingredient of the offense. (Stoddard v ... U.S. 214 F. 566; St. Anthony Co. v. McIlquiham, ... 83 P. 364.) The evidence offered by ... instance. Numerous authorities relating to different states ... are cited. Stofferin et ux v. Okanogan County, et ... al., 136 P. 484, when considered in ... 885, 180 U.S. 92; 45 L.Ed. 440. See also the additional ... authorities on United States Statute, Sec. 2477, Vol. 6, ... Federal Statutes Annotated, 498. The establishment of roads ... ...
-
United States ex rel. Bergen v. Lawrence, C85-0136-B.
...the court held that there must be reasonable access for livestock to reach enclosed federal lands. Moreover, in Stoddard v. United States, 214 F. 566 (8th Cir.1914), the Eighth Circuit specifically rejected the argument that defendant now presses this Court to embrace. In holding that the U......
-
Mackay v. Uinta Development Co.
...219 F. 116 MACKAY v. UINTA DEVELOPMENT CO. No. 3411.United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.November 10, 1914 [219 F. 117] ... Barnard ... 581, 186 F. 711; ... Lillis v. United States, 111 C.C.A. 362, 190 F. 530; ... Stoddard v. United States, 131 C.C.A. 18, 214 F ... 566. In the recent Stoddard Case it was argued that ... ...