United States Department of Agriculture v. Hunter, 12301.

• Decision Date: 17 February 1949
• Docket Number: No. 12301.,12301.
• Citation: 171 F.2d 793
• Parties: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE et al. v. HUNTER et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

171 F.2d 793 (1949)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE et al. v. HUNTER et al.

No. 12301.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

January 11, 1949.

Rehearing Denied February 17, 1949.

Frank B. Potter, U. S. Atty., of Fort Worth, Tex., A. Devitt Vanech, Asst. Atty. Gen., John F. Cotter, S. Billingsley Hill, Roger P. Marquis, and George S. Swarth, all of Washington, D. C., and O. Morris Harrell, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Fort Worth, for appellants.

Jack Connell and John Davenport, both of Wichita Falls, Tex., for appellees.

Before HUTCHESON, SIBLEY and McCORD, Circuit Judges.

SIBLEY, Circuit Judge.

The decree appealed from is that "The mineral, oil and gas rights reserved to the United States in each of the quitclaim deeds to each of these plaintiffs * * * were unlawfully reserved, and there has been a cloud cast upon the title to the respective properties owned by these plaintiffs by virtue of such unlawful and wrongful reservations in each of said quitclaim deeds conveying the title to the respective properties of these plaintiffs. * * * The quitclaim deeds were executed by the United States through the United States Department of Agriculture through the Farm Security Administration. * * * It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed * * * that the plaintiffs in this action are hereby quieted in their title to the mineral, oil and gas rights unlawfully reserved underlying the respective properties and that each of these respective plaintiffs recover herein all of the mineral, oil and gas rights in and under their respective tracts of land." The defendants, appealing, specify as error the overruling of the motion to dismiss of each, the court's holding it had jurisdiction to enter a judgment against the United States Department of Agriculture, or against Anderson in his capacity as Secretary of Agriculture; the holding that the United States was not an indispensable party; and the holding that the reservation in the deeds was unlawful, or cast a cloud on Plaintiffs' titles.

The plaintiffs suing in a single complaint are seventy husbands, each joined by his wife, having deeds from the United States to their several parcels of land, executed between June 30, 1943, and July 1, 1944, the lands being in the Wichita Valley Farms Project of 5,600 acres in Wichita Valley, Texas, established more than five years before 1943 by the Resettlement Administration and Farm Security Administration, which were operated by the United States Department of Agriculture. The petition as amended further alleges that each plaintiff was duly received into the project, qualified to become a purchaser of his farm, arranged for a loan and paid the purchase price, in most instances more than $3,000, and received a quitclaim deed from the United States executed by the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Farm Security Administration and its Regional Director, but the deed retained in the grantor three-fourths of all the minerals, oil and gas, leaving to the grantees only one-fourth thereof. It is alleged that Section 640 — 1 of Title 12 U.S.C.A. being codified from the Act of July 1, 1944, 58 Stats. 675, requires quitclaims "without any reservations, exceptions, conditions or restrictions whatsoever", and that plaintiffs are within that Act; also that the Act codified in 40 U.S.C.A. §§ 436-439, 60 Stats. 712, which became effective July 30, 1946, requires "Any conveyance by the Government of title to land under sections 436-439 of this title shall convey all of the right, title, and interest of the Government in and to such land, including all mineral rights", and that the plaintiffs are also within that Act. Both the original and amended petitions name as defendants only the United States Department of Agriculture and Clinton P. Anderson in his capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture. Both petitions conclude with the allegation that "Plaintiffs are compelled to bring this suit against the United States Department of...