Sullivan Co. v. Meer

• Decision Date: 28 April 1942
• Docket Number: 2215
• Parties: SULLIVAN CO. ET AL. v. MEER
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

125 P.2d 168

58 Wyo. 90

SULLIVAN CO. ET AL. v. MEER

No. 2215

Supreme Court of Wyoming

April 28, 1942

APPEAL from the District Court, Carbon County, V. J. TIDBALL, Judge.

Proceeding by Sullivan Company and Susan J. Quealy against Robert Meer to review a decision of the State Board of Land Commissioners in regard to claims of the parties for grazing leases on certain lands. From an adverse judgment, Robert Meer appeals.

Affirmed.

For the appellant, there was a brief and an oral argument by S. K Briggs of Rawlins.

Upon application of appellant, the Commissioner of Public Lands exchanged certain lands for 3,062 acres of government land in Carbon County, which surrounded appellant's winter holdings in the Shirley Basin country. Appellant paid the costs incident to said exchange. Respondents Sullivan Company and Susan J. Quealy applied for leases on said lands. Sullivan Company applied for 640 acres and offered ten cents per acre annual rental. Susan J. Quealy applied for 2,025 acres and offered fifteen cents per acre annual rental. The State Land Department denied their applications and awarded the lands to appellant, from which respondents appealed to the District Court. The court practically divided the acreage between the contestants at rental rates offered by them. Appellant has appealed from said judgment. Statutes pertinent to this controversy are Sections 91-114; 91-107; 91-108 and 91-306, R. S. 1931. Appellant contends that the intended purpose of said statutes is to confer upon the Board of Land Commissioners a broad discretion in fixing rentals and awarding leases to applicants, and that in the absence of fraud or an abuse of discretion, the courts are without power to disturb decisions of the Land Board. The most recent decision of the Supreme Court on the general question is Kerrigan v. Miller, 53 Wyo. 441, a case similar in many respects to the case at bar, especially as to the element of actual and necessary use. The District Court of Carbon County apparently heard and decided the appeal on the theory that it had power to hear the case de novo and to receive additional evidence. Appellant's contention is that the decision of the Board of Land Commissioners is a substantial right vested in appellant, which should be considered on the evidence presented to the Board of Land Commissioners, the discretion of said Board having been recognized by a series of former decisions of this court in State v. Board, 7 Wyo. 478; Cooper v McCormick, 10 Wyo. 379; Baker v. Brown, 12 Wyo 198; Bucknum v. Johnson, 21 Wyo. 39; Miller v. Hurley, 37 Wyo. 344. This doctrine was recognized by the Supreme Court of Arizona in Manning v. Perry (Ariz.) 62 P.2d 693. The hearing in the District Court produced no new facts or evidence of fraud, or abuse of power, on the part of the Land Board, and that court exceeded its authority in taking over the powers of the Board of Land Commissioners conferred upon it by law. As the land in controversy comprised necessary and desirable winter range of appellant, said court decision resulted in manifest injustice to appellant and should be reversed.

As amicus curiae, there was a brief by Ewing T. Kerr, Attorney General; H. I. Bacheller, Deputy Attorney General; and Arthur Kline, Assistant Attorney General, all of Cheyenne, and an oral argument by Mr. Bacheller.

In this case the District Court exercised its own discretion in awarding the leases to the various parties. The State Land Board, with the exception of 480 acres, had given a lease on the entire tract to Meer. Two questions are presented for determination: (1) The extent of the power and discretion of the Land Board in awarding leases. (2) The authority of the Land Board to fix rentals for leases on state lands. The Land Board is granted absolute power by statute to manage and lease public lands of the state and its decisions will not be disturbed except for fraud or manifest injustice. Miller v. Hurley, 37 Wyo. 344; Article XVIII, Section 3, Wyoming Constitution. The Legislature under the mandate in Section 4, Article XVIII enacted pertinent statutes on the subject. Sections 91-102; 91-105 and 91-109, as amended by Chapter 106, Laws 1935, and Sections 91-113 and 91-114, R. S. 1931 relate to a preference to lease state lands. The State acquired these lands under the Taylor Grazing Act at the request of Meer by an exchange of state lands. The discretion of the Land Board was first observed in the case of State v. Board, 7 Wyo. 478, again in Cooper v. McCormick, 10 Wyo. 379; Miller v. Hurley, 37 Wyo. 344 and in the recent case of Kerrigan v. Miller, 53 Wyo. 441. The Land Board is not obliged to lease land to the person offering the highest rental, but may use its own judgment as to what will secure the greatest benefit to the state. The District Court in dividing the lands among the contestants fixed the rental rate that had been offered by each of them. This brief has been filed on behalf of the Board of Land Commissioners, it being the feeling of said Board that under the statutes, constitutional provisions and various decisions of this court, the authority of the Board to grant leases is well established and within certain limitations the discretion of the Board is final. The decision rendered by the District Court on an appeal seems to cover the authority of the Land Board and if affirmed may destroy, or at least render uncertain, future decisions of the Land Board in the granting of leases on state lands. It is respectfully submitted that the many applicants for State land leases should be in a position to determine to what extent the courts will review actions of the Land Board in awarding such leases.

For the respondent Sullivan Company, there was a brief and oral argument by C. A. Brimmer of Rawlins.

The testimony before the District Court showed that all of the appellants were qualified under Section 91-109, R. S. 1931, and that this respondent had actual and necessary use for the land, and that it held title to land one-fourth of a mile from the land in controversy. The questions here presented are: (1) Has the court power to review an abuse of discretion by the Land Board? (2) Did said Board abuse its discretion or misconstrue the statutes in the present case? (3) If the court had the power to review this case, did it have power to order the Land Board to issue a lease to this respondent? We contend that the District Court has power and jurisdiction to hear and determine contests in which the State Board of Land Commissioners has exceeded its jurisdiction. Walls v. Evans, 38 Wyo. 103; Cooper v. McCormick, 10 Wyo. 379. The State Board exceeded its discretion in awarding the lease to Robert Meer. Laws 1935, Chapter 34. The statute applicable to this section is § 91-113, R. S. 1931, construed by this court in Kerrigan v. Miller, 53 Wyo. 441. This respondent had a statutory preferential right to a lease on the contested land. Section 91-113, R. S. 1931 does not require an applicant to own lands adjoining the land applied for but to hold lands in the vicinity thereof. Section 91-114, R. S. 1931. Appellant in his brief states that the District Court "for all practical purposes evenly divided the lands between the contestants." This statement is untrue. The Court awarded Sullivan Company 480 acres, Susan J. Quealy 320 acres and Robert Meer 1781.23 acres. Dolling had been awarded 480 acres by the Land Commissioner. The award made by the Land Commissioner to Meer disregarded the provisions of Section 91-113, R. S. 1931. The Land Commissioners violated Section 91-113, R. S., which provides that the Board shall lease land so as to secure the greatest revenue to the state. In this case the Board leased the land to the lowest of the three bidders at his own bid. The court is the proper body to rectify the abuse of discretion of the Land Board and its decision should be affirmed. Miller v. Hurley, 37 Wyo. 344; Bucknum v. Johnson, 21 Wyo. 26; Cooper v. McCormick, 9 Wyo. 379. The judgment of the lower court is in accordance with the laws of the State and should be affirmed.

For the respondent, Susan J. Quealy, there was a brief and oral argument by Patrick J. Quealy, Jr.

The facts are not in dispute and are stated in substance in the various briefs of the parties. The District Court had jurisdiction to determine a contest in which the State Land Board had exceeded its discretion. Section 91-306, R. S. Otherwise an appeal to the court would be useless. Section 91-306, R. S. 1931; Walls v. Evans, 38 Wyo. 103; Cooper v. McCormick, 10 Wyo. 379. The Board exceeded its jurisdiction in awarding the lease to Meer. The discretion of the State Board is limited by statute. Act of Admission, Section 5; Article XVIII, Section 3, Constitution; Kerrigan v. Miller, 53 Wyo. 442; Section 91-114, R. S. 1931. This respondent had a statutory preferential right to a lease on the contested land and was a qualified applicant. Sections 91-109, 113, 114, R. S. There is no element in this case which justified the State Board in exercising discretion for the benefit of the State. Kerrigan v. Miller, supra. The award to Meer was made without reference to the statutory preference given to respondent by Section 91-113, R. S. Since the State Board abused its discretion, the action of the District Court was proper and should be affirmed. The District Court was the proper tribunal to rectify the mistakes of the State Board and its decision in awarding a lease for a portion of the lands to respondent should be affirmed. Cooper v. McCormick, supra. The action of the court in fixing the rental rate was proper and should be affirmed. The statute does not require an applicant to own lands adjoining the land applied for. Ownership of lands in the vicinity thereof is sufficient.

S. K Briggs...