United States v. Carbon County Land Co.

• Decision Date: 17 November 1925
• Docket Number: No. 6987.,6987.
• Citation: 9 F.2d 517
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. CARBON COUNTY LAND CO. et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

9 F.2d 517 (1925)

UNITED STATES v. CARBON COUNTY LAND CO. et al.^*

No. 6987.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

November 17, 1925.

Eustace Smith, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen. (S. W. Williams, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., on the brief), for the United States.

Mahlon E. Wilson, of Salt Lake City, Utah (Frederick C. Loofbourow and Albert R. Barnes, both of Salt Lake City, Utah, on the brief), for appellee Independent Coal & Coke Co.

Russell G. Schulder, of Salt Lake City, Utah (Samuel A. King and Creighton G. King, both of Salt Lake City, Utah, on the brief), for appellee Carbon County Land Co.

O. K. Clay, Co. Atty., of Price, Utah, for appellee Carbon County.

Before LEWIS and KENYON, Circuit Judges, and MUNGER, District Judge.

LEWIS, Circuit Judge.

The appellant filed its complaint in the District Court on May 16, 1924, against appellees, Carbon County Land Company, Independent Coal & Coke Company, corporations, and Carbon County, Utah, alleging that: (a) During the years 1901 to 1904 there were certified to the State of Utah, under the Act of July 16, 1894 (28 Stat. 107), certain described lands, in all 5,564.28 acres; (b) the State of Utah executed contracts of sale of said lands to named individuals who assigned them to Carbon County Land Company; (c) thereafter, in January, 1907, this appellant brought suit in the United States court for the District of Utah against said individuals and the Carbon County Land Company for the cancellation of said contracts, on the ground that the lands were mineral lands and were known to be such at the time they were selected by the State, said suit was tried on its merits and said court entered a decree on June 8, 1914, wherein it was adjudged that plaintiff (this appellant) was the true and lawful owner of said lands and its title thereto was quieted against all claims, demands or pretenses whatsoever of the defendants in that suit, or of any person or persons claiming, or thereafter to claim, through or under the said defendants or any or either of them, that said defendants had no right, title or interest or right of possession in or to said premises, and each of them was perpetually restrained and enjoined from setting up or making any claim to or upon said premises; (d) that decree was affirmed by this court on November 15, 1915 (Milner v. United States, 228 F. 431, 143 C. C. A. 13); (e) on February 10, 1920, the State of Utah issued its patent to said lands to the Carbon County Land Company, the same company to which the contracts of sale had been assigned; (f) appellee Independent Coal and Coke Company now claims an interest in a part of the lands; (g) Carbon County was made defendant because it claims part of the lands under a tax sale made in the year 1921; and it was prayed that defendant Carbon County Land Company be adjudged and decreed to hold whatever title it has to said lands in trust for the plaintiff, to convey the same to plaintiff and deliver to plaintiff any patent or deeds to said lands in its possession, that defendants be enjoined from intermeddling with said lands and removing coal therefrom. Each of the appellees moved to dismiss, on the ground that the suit was barred by the Statute of Limitations, Act March 3, 1891 (26 Stat. 1095). The court sustained each motion on the ground stated and dismissed the bill. This appeal was then taken.

In so ruling the learned District Judge said:

"The certification by the Secretary of the Interior of the lands in question to the state of Utah was in legal effect a patent, and in my opinion comes within the meaning of the word patent as used in section 8 of the Act of March 3, 1891" (Comp. St. § 5114).

In United States v. Winona & S. P. R. R. Co., 165 U. S. 463, 17 S. Ct. 368, 41 L. Ed. 789; Shaw v. Kellogg, 170 U. S. 312, 18 S. Ct. 632, 42 L. Ed. 1050, and other cases, it has been held that a certification of lands by the Secretary under statutory authority therefor has the same legal effect as a patent; and it is argued here that this suit was brought to avoid the certification. We think a mere reading of the bill demonstrates that view is a misconception. As to this suit, it is rather an acceptance of the Secretary's certification than an attack upon it. The Act of March 3, 1891, provides that suits to vacate and annul patents shall only be brought within six years after the date of the issuance of such patents. This suit was not brought to vacate and annul the Secretary's certificate. That is no part of its purpose. No such relief is sought. We think the statute relied on has no application to this case.

In the Milner Case, 228 F. 431, 143 C. C. A. 13, we reviewed at length the fraudulent methods resorted to for the purpose of procuring certification of the lands to the State for the use and benefit of Carbon County Land Company. The plan made use of the State as a mere conduit through which the lands were to be fraudulently acquired. The State also, as well as the Secretary, seems to have been imposed upon. Before the lands were selected by the State and certified to it the individual defendants in the former suit entered into contracts with the State to purchase the lands at a nominal sum per acre, in event it obtained the certification, and they assigned those contracts to Carbon County Land Company, which company they owned and controlled. They induced the State and Secretary to act on false representations that the lands were not mineral lands, nor valuable as coal lands. According to the charges in this complaint, the legal title passed through the State to that company after it was finally decided that as between appellant and Carbon County Land Company all of the lands belonged to the United States and its title thereto was quieted as against that company. Perforce that decree Carbon County Land...