United States v. Bush
| Decision Date | 29 February 1916 |
| Docket Number | 68. |
| Citation | 233 F. 808 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. BUSH. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington |
Clay Allen, U.S. Atty., and Winter S. Martin, Asst. U.S. Atty both of Seattle, Wash.
P. V Davis and E. M. Comyns, both of Seattle, Wash., for defendant.
The United States has filed a bill in equity in which it alleges in substance, that on the 18th of December, 1902, certain land in the bill described was withdrawn from entry by executive order, and on March 2, 1907, included in the boundaries of the Washington Forest Reserve, and subsequently changed to Snoqualmie National Forest; that the United States is the owner of the land, and the defendant, Clarence N Bush, a citizen of the United States and resident of this district, without any authority or permission from the government, during the summer of 1904, wrongfully and unlawfully went upon the land and committed certain acts of trespass thereon from time to time, by cutting trees, and commenced preparation for making a homestead, and during the year 1915 committed similar acts of trespass; that the defendant threatens to continue such trespasses and occupation, which acts are wholly unauthorized by law, and that his continual presence within the confines of the National Forest Reserve is subversive of the rules and regulations of the Forest Service, and tends to invite the commission of other trespasses, all in violation of the rules and regulations; and that the government is without a speedy and adequate remedy at law, and asks that the defendant be enjoined from the commission of such wrongful acts in order to avoid multiplicity of suits.
The defendant answers, in which he sets up, in substance, that on the 21st of November, 1900, he made actual and bona fide settlement on the land; that at the time the land was unsurveyed; that the improvements and settlement were made in contemplation of official surveying of the land and filing of plat thereof; that the official plat was filed on the 14th of December, 1912, and on the same day he filed his application to enter the land under the government land laws, to carry out his original intention of location and settlement, which application was rejected by the local officials, and upon appeal was rejected by the Commissioner of the General Land Office, on April 22, 1913, for the alleged reason that the said land had been included in the from entry on November 18, 1902, and had been included in the Washington Forest Reserve by departmental order, March 2, 1907; that the honorable Secretary of the Interior confirmed the decision of the honorable Commissioner of the General Land Office, 'all of which actions by said officials of said local land office, the Commissioner of the General Land Office, and the Secretary of Interior were arbitrary, unwarranted, unsupported by the evidence, contrary to law, illegal, and void, and were based upon false, fraudulent, and perjured testimony and evidence and a misconstruction of the law by the said respective officials'; that on the 18th of November, 1902, the land was illegally attempted to be withdrawn from entry, and thereafter was illegally attempted to be included in the Washington Reserve by certain illegal, executive, and departmental orders, 'and that the Department of the Interior illegally attempted to adjudicate the rights of the defendant herein and to try the issues between the Agriculture Department and this defendant while the land was unsurveyed, and that said Department of Interior never acquired any jurisdiction to try any issues between the United States or any of its departments and this defendant until after the plat was filed and said land was identified by an official survey thereof; that all of the decisions of the officials of the local land office and the Secretary of the Interior were without jurisdiction, contrary to law, and unsupported by the evidence, and based and founded upon false, fraudulent, and perjured testimony of the special agents in the employ of the Department of the Interior of the United States and other witnesses, and said decisions were based and founded upon a misconstruction of the law by each and every one of said such officials of the United States, and all of said decisions were contrary to law, without jurisdiction, arbitrary, unwarranted, unsupported by the evidence, and in absolute disregard and contravention of this defendant's rights, who...
To continue reading
Request your trial