United States v. Bighorn Sheep Co.
| Decision Date | 12 November 1921 |
| Docket Number | 5353. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. BIGHORN SHEEP CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Charles L. Rigdon, U.S. Atty., and David J. Howell, Asst. U.S. Atty both of Cheyenne, Wyo.
William A. Riner, of Cheyenne, Wyo., for appellees.
Before SANBORN and CARLAND, Circuit Judges, and MUNGER, District judge.
This appeal is prosecuted from an order sustaining a motion to dismiss portions of the plaintiff's bill. The object of the suit is the cancellation of a large number of patents to public lands, alleged to have been procured from the United States by fraud of the entrymen. It embraces 98 entries, made under the laws relating to the disposition of homesteads desert lands, timber and stone, and isolated tracts. Each entry is separately described, and the facts relating to it are set out, with the object of making a case for cancellation of the particular patent covering it. The bill alleges that the several entries were not made in good faith and that the several entrymen did not intend to comply with the requirements of the law, and that each entry was made for the benefit of and pursuant to an agreement with the present holder of the title, the Bighorn Sheep Company, or its predecessor in interest, that the title would be conveyed to it as soon as the patent was issued, and that it was so conveyed. Other averments are intended to allege notice of the inculpatory facts by the several defendants and to excuse the delay in commencing this suit.
The defendant corporation, who is alleged to be the present holder of the title, and other defendants, who are alleged to have made the immediate conveyance to it, filed motions to dismiss portions of the bill because they stated no ground for relief, because any cause of action stated therein was barred by the special statute of limitation applying to such suits, and because the plaintiff was guilty of inexcusable laches. The court sustained the motion as to the plaintiff's allegations relating to 34 of the 98 entries of land, and overruled it as to the allegations relating to the other entries. From this order this appeal was taken.
Under the statutes conferring jurisdiction upon the courts of appeal of the United States, an appeal can only be taken from a final decree, unless the acts of Congress have made exceptions. A decree is final when it terminates the litigation between the parties on the merits of the case, and leaves nothing to be done but to enforce by execution what has been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stewart v. Bishop
...be done but to enforce it by execution. Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 65 S.Ct. 631, 89 L.Ed. 911 (1945); United States v. Bighorn Sheep Co., 276 F. 710 (8 Cir.1921); Asher v. Ruppa, 173 F.2d 10 (7 Cir.1949). A final judgment is the last word of the law, the final determination of t......
-
United States v. Broude
... ... 343, 344, 8 C.C.A ... 655; Gladys Belle Oil Co. v. Mackey (C.C.A. 8) 216 ... F. 129, 130, 132 C.C.A. 373; United States v. Big Horn ... Sheep Co. (C.C.A. 8) 276 F. 710, 711; Pierce v ... National Bank of Commerce (C.C.A. 8) Fed. 100, 103 ... In the ... Act of March 3, 1891, ... ...
-
Clinton Foods v. United States
...to enforce by execution what has been determined.' France & Canada S. S. Co. v. French Republic, 2 Cir., 285 F. 290, 294; U. S. v. Bighorn Sheep Co., 8 Cir., 276 F. 710." The precise question was before us in Jiffy Lubricator Co. v. Stewart-Warner Corp., 4 Cir., 177 F.2d 360, 361, certiorar......
-
Miller v. Pyrites Co.
...by execution what has been determined.' France & Canada S. S. Co. v. French Republic (C. C. A. 2d) 285 F. 290, 294; U. S. v. Bighorn Sheep Co. (C. C. A. 8th) 276 F. 710. `When a decree finally decides and disposes of the whole merits of the cause, and reserves no further questions or direct......