United States v. Brighton Ranch Co.

Decision Date16 November 1885
Citation25 F. 465
PartiesUNITED STATES v. BRIGHTON RANCH CO. and another.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Nebraska

G. M. Lambertson, for complainant.

J. M. Woolworth, for respondents.

MILLER, Justice.

I am of opinion that the United States is entitled to its injunction mandatory as to so much of the fence complained of as exists, and prohibitory as to building any future fences, so far as either of them comes within the following principles: (1) There exists no right in the defendants to build any fence on the lands of the United States. (2) All lands are for this purpose lands of the United States so long as the legal title remains in the United States. (3) It is the right of the United States and its duty to protect all such lands from this misuse in cases where there have been any kind of entries, whether of pre-emption, homestead, or private entry, though the purchase money be paid, so long as the legal title remains in the United States; except where these latter parties build their own fences, or give express license to others to do it. In these cases it holds the title in trust, and can maintain this bill to remove the fence or prevent its erection. A decree should be entered based on these principles.

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Anthony Wilkinson Live Stock Company v. McIlquam
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • December 16, 1905
    ... ... the United States have a right for their live stock to graze ... and pasture at will ... at Large, 321); Buford v. Houtz, 133 U.S. 320; ... U. S. v. Brighton Ranch Co., 26 F. 218; U. S. v ... Brighton Ranch Co., 25 F. 465; U ... ...
  • Woodruff v. Wallace
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • July 27, 1895
    ...of possession, between claimants on public lands, we call attention to, U. S. v. Cleveland & Colorado Cattle Co., 33 F. 323; U. S. v. Brighton Ranch Co., 25 F. 465, and 26 Fed. 218; Webster v. Cooke, 23 Kan. 637; Downing v. Reeves, 24 Kan. 167; French v. Cresswell, 13 Ore. 418, 11 P. 62 (Or......
  • Woodruff v. Wallace
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • July 27, 1895
    ... ... passes from the government of the United States ...          5. A ... homestead filing does not convey ... v ... Cleveland & C. Cattle Co., 53 F. 323; U.S. v ... Brighton Ranch Co., 25 F. 465, 26 F. 218; Webster v ... Cooke, 23 Kan. 637; ... ...
  • Hecht v. Harrison
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • May 11, 1895
    ...(Act. of Cong., Feb., 1885.) The conclusion reached in the case of U. S. v. Douglas-W. Sar. Co., 3 Wyo. 288, is not sound. (U. S. v. Brighton R. Co., 25 F. 465; S. v. Cleveland C. Co., 33 id., 323; U. S. v. Camfield, 59 id., 562; U. S. v. Brighton R. Co., 26 id., 218; U. S. v. Buford, 8 Uta......
  • 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