Thomas v. United States

Citation136 F. 159
Decision Date06 February 1905
Docket Number1,090.
PartiesTHOMAS v. UNITED STATES.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)

The United States instituted a suit in equity against the appellant under the provisions of the act of Congress entitled 'An act to prevent unlawful occupancy of the public lands. ' Chapter 149, p. 477, Supp.Rev.St.U.S.Act Feb. 25, 1885, c. 149, 23 Stat. 321 (U.S.Comp.St. 1901, p 1524). The bill of complaint alleges that an affidavit was filed with the United States District Attorney, as provided for in the second section of the act; that the United States owns the lands described in the complaint, and that the same are public lands; that the appellant has violated the provisions of said act by unlawfully inclosing and fencing said lands, and maintaining said unlawful inclosure over the same, occuping and asserting exclusive right and control thereof, and disallowing all other persons and all other stock except his own, or by his permission, to go upon or pass over said lands; that, by force, threats, and intimidations, and by fencing and inclosing, and other unlawful means, he has prevented and obstructed, and combined and confederated with others to prevent and obstruct, any and all persons from peaceably entering upon and establishing a settlement and residence on said described lands or any thereof; that at all times stated in the bill the appellant has prevented and obstructed, and does now prevent and obstruct, free passage and transit over and through said lands, or any part of the same, by fences and other unlawful means. The appellant answered the bill, denying that said lands, or any portion thereof, are or have at any time been inclosed with any fences erected or maintained by him; denying that the lands are in his possession or exclusive use or occupancy; denying that he ever erected or maintained, or now maintains, any fences upon any of said described lands; denying that he has any use or occupation of said lands, except that certain stock, cattle, and animals belonging to him roam over and graze upon the same, as by law they may do, said lands being a part of the public domain; and denying that the appellant has or does assert or exercise exclusive right or control over the lands, or any part thereof, or that he has disallowed other persons or stock to go upon or pass over said lands, or that he had combined or does combine with others to prevent other persons from peaceably entering upon and establishing settlement and residence thereon. Upon the testimony the court entered a decree in favor of the appellee and against the appellant; finding that at the time of the commencement of the suit the appellant was maintaining and controlling, and has since that time maintained and controlled, strong and substantial fences upon the lands described in the bill, and that he was without right in so doing. The decree required the appellant to take down and remove all the fences surrounding said lands, and enjoined him from further interfering with said lands, and ordered that, in case of his failure to comply with the decree, the United States marshal remove said fences.

O. F Goddard, for appellant.

Carl Rasch, for appellee.

Before GILBERT, ROSS, and MORROW, Circuit Judges.

GILBERT Circuit Judge, after stating the case as above, .

It is assigned as error that the court held that the lands described in the bill were inclosed by a fence owned or controlled by the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • State v. O'Neil
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • September 17, 1913
    ... ... 107, 49 So. 678; People v ... Friedman, 149 A.D. 873, 134 N.Y.S. 153; Dyar v ... United States, 186 F. 614, 108 C. C. A. 478; Johnson ... v. Commonwealth, 144 Ky. 287, 137 S.W. 1079; ... whether or not the intent was shown. ( United States v ... Breese, 131 F. 915; Thomas v. United States, ... 136 F. 159, 69 C. C. A. 157; United States v. Kenney, 90 F ... ...
  • Hatch Bros. Company v. Black
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • June 11, 1917
    ...their homestead entries, which was unlawful. (Canfield v. U.S. 42 L.Ed. 260; Hanley v. U.S. 186 F. 711; Lilis v. U.S. 190 F. 530; Thomas v. U. S. 136 F. 159.) Intent is not an ingredient of the offense. (Stoddard U.S. 214 F. 566; St. Anthony Co. v. McIlquiham, 83 P. 364.) The evidence offer......
  • Dowdle v. Wheeler
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • October 14, 1905
    ...73 Ark. 199. The action is barred by the statute of limitation. 75 Cal. 584; 17 P. 705; 51 N.Y.S. 937; 47 S.W. 821; 5 Cowen (N. Y.) 216; 136 F. 159; 74 Cal. 11; 47 S.W. 821; 56 P. 513. Appellee is estopped the description in her deeds. 18 How. 150; 10 Pick. 249; 15 Johns. 451. A. F. Vandeve......
  • Golconda Cattle Co. v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • December 2, 1912
    ... ... a point where it would connect with a fence on an adjoining ... ranch, as in Potts v. United States, 114 F. 52, 51 ... C.C.A. 678; sometimes advantage would be taken of a portion ... of an existing fence and a sheet of water, as in Thomas ... v. United States, 136 F. 159, 69 C.C.A. 157; sometimes a ... fence would be extended to a precipitous rim rock, as in ... Hanley v. United States, 186 F. 711, 108 C.C.A. 581; ... or a canon or ravine would be tied to, or even a thick ... undergrowth would be used, to form a link in a ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT