United States v. Heinrich
| Decision Date | 25 February 1926 |
| Citation | 12 F.2d 938 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. HEINRICH. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Montana |
John L. Slattery, U. S. Atty., of Great Falls, Mont., and Ethelbert Ward, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen.
Johnston, Coleman & Johnston, of Billings, Mont., for defendant.
This is an action at law on the part of the government to collect, from the defendant, construction costs of irrigation works supplying water to his lands, as a personal charge against the defendant as owner of such lands. Defendant demurred to the complaint on the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, which is the question for consideration. This action, according to counsel for the government, is based largely upon the Act of Congress of June 4, 1920 (41 Stat. 751), and especially upon section 8 thereof. Under this act all owners of lands irrigated from the Crow Indian ditches constructed with the Crow tribal funds are required to repay to the Crow Tribe their proportionate part of the construction costs of the irrigation works by which their lands are irrigated.
The most important question raised in defendant's brief relates to the constitutionality of the Act of June 4, 1920. Whether the proper remedy is through an action at law or suit in equity is another matter presented, and which may or may not become material at this time. From a perusal of the various acts of Congress relating thereto, it is found that the irrigation works of the Crow irrigation project, so called, were constructed by the United States with the Crow tribal funds by agreement with the Crow Tribe.
The acts of February 8, 1887 (24 Stat. 388), and of May 8, 1906 (34 Stat. 182), are general allotment statutes, and the latter act, which is an amendment of the former, authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to issue fee-simple patents, without restrictions as to alienation, to Indians who are competent and capable of managing their own affairs, and further that, upon the death of any Indian allottee before the expiration of the trust period, the land reverts to the United States, and patent to the same may be issued to the heirs of the deceased allottee, or the land may be sold and proceeds paid to the Indian heirs.
The defendant acquired title to the lands in question under this act, which does not provide for any reservation, exception, or restriction in patents issued under it. Patents issued under this law, mentioned in the complaint and in the briefs of counsel, appear to have vested in defendant absolute and unconditional title. Subsequent to the issuance of such patents, Congress enacted a law upon which this action is based.
Such patents as were issued here would, without doubt, include the water and ditch rights appurtenant to the land, although not expressly mentioned therein. Brewer-Elliott Oil & Gas Co. v. United States, 260 U. S. 77, 43 S. Ct. 60, 67 L. Ed. 140; Hardin v. Jordan, 140 U. S. 371, 11 S. Ct. 808, 838, 35 L. Ed. 428; Packer v. Bird, 137 U. S. 661, 11 S. Ct. 210, 34 L. Ed. 819; Smith v. Denniff, 23 Mont. 65, 57 P. 557, 50 L. R. A. 737; Tucker v. Jones, 8 Mont. 225, 19 P. 571; McDonnell v. Huffine, 44 Mont. 411, 120 P. 792. However, from the complaint and the briefs of counsel for the government, question as to whether such water and ditch rights were included in the patents does not appear to have been raised. This is an action to recover defendant's share of construction costs and charges. It is admitted by the government that notices of sale of the lands by the United States provided for a perpetual water right. It seems clear that the defendant is the owner of the lands, water, and ditch rights involved; therefore he contends that to compel him to pay cost of construction of the irrigation system is in direct violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which provides, among other things, that "no person * * * shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
Plaintiff states that the act under consideration is remedial in its nature, and wholly for the protection of the Crow Tribe "in its prior and superior vested rights in the water reserved for the use...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Darr v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York
...Duke Power Co. v. South Carolina Tax Com., 4 Cir., 81 F.2d 513; Badger v. Hoidale, 8 Cir., 88 F.2d 208, 109 A.L.R. 798; United States v. Heinrich, D.C., 12 F.2d 938, affirmed on another point 9 Cir., 16 F. 2d 112; Preveslin v. Derby & Ansonia Developing Co., 112 Conn. 129, 151 A. 518, 70 A.......
-
Blackfeet Tribe v. Klies Livestock Company
...1914, 234 U.S. 669, 34 S.Ct. 907, 58 L.Ed. 1527. The authority for such liens must exist when the patents are issued. United States v. Heinrich, D.C.Mont.1926, 12 F.2d 938 and cases there cited, affirmed 9 Cir., 16 F.2d 112. See also: Opinion of the Solicitor, Dept. of Interior, dated Sept.......
-
In re Meyers
... ... She was boarded, nursed, and maintained by claimant until March, 1925. She also states, in her affidavit dated April 17, 1926, that her husband had provided no home for her when she left ... ...