United States v. North American Oil Consolidated

Decision Date05 April 1920
Docket Number3340.
PartiesUNITED STATES v. NORTH AMERICAN OIL CONSOLIDATED et al.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Rehearing Denied May 17, 1920.

Henry F. May and Eugene B. Lacy, Sp. Asst. Attys. Gen., and Chas D. Hamel, Sp. Asst. U.S. Atty., of San Francisco, Cal.

A. L Weil, Charles S. Wheeler, and John F. Bowie, all of San Francisco, Cal., for appellee North American Oil Consolidated.

J. D Lederman, of San Francisco, Cal., for appellee Pioneer Midway Oil Co.

Andrews Toland & Andrews, of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellees Union Oil Co. of California and Producers' Transp. Co.

Before GILBERT, ROSS, and HUNT, Circuit Judges.

ROSS Circuit Judge.

The present is an appeal from the final decree of the court below dismissing the suit, which was brought by the government to obtain a decree adjudging that the defendants thereto had no right or interest in a certain section of the then public land of the United States known and described as section 2, township 32 south, of range 23 east of the Mt. Diablo base and meridian, or in any of the oil, gas, or other mineral contained therein, for the appointment of a receiver of the property, for an injunction, and an accounting of the oil that had been extracted from the land.

A receiver having been appointed by the court, the case was brought here by the defendants thereto by appeal from that order, where it was argued and submitted, together with two other cases entitled Consolidated Mutual Oil Co. et al. v. United States, each of them presenting the same questions of law, and each of them resulting in the reversal of the orders appealed from. 245 F. 521, 157 C.C.A. 633; 245 F. 533, 157 C.C.A. 645. In the brief then filed by the counsel for the government in the North American Oil Consolidated Case (the main defendant and appellee in the present case) it was said:

'The issues presented by this appeal are practically identical with some of the issues presented by the appeals in the two cases, each entitled Consolidated Mutual Oil Company et al. v. United States, Nos. 2787 and 2788, now pending before this court; and in view of the fact that all three of these appeals are set for hearing on the same date, and that the decision of the court in the cases last mentioned will be decisive upon this appeal, the argument presented in the briefs of appellee in cases Nos. 2787 and 2788 will not be repeated in this brief.'

The issues so referred to were issues of fact and of law, and involved two principal questions, to wit: Were the lands involved valid locations thereof under the mineral land laws at the time the President made the withdrawal order of September 27,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Booth v. Fletcher
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • December 19, 1938
    ...of another suit in the same court under which it had taken possession of the subject-matter of this suit." United States v. North American Oil Consolidated, 9 Cir., 264 F. 336, appeal dismissed 258 U.S. 633, 42 S.Ct. 315, 66 L.Ed. 802; Washington & Idaho R. R. v. C?“ur D'Alene Ry. & Navigat......
  • Franz v. Buder
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • September 9, 1929
    ...same parties. Freshman v. Atkins, 269 U. S. 121; Cushman Paper Box Mach. Co. v. Goddard (C. C. A.) 95 F. 664; United States v. North American Oil Consol. (C. C. A.) 264 F. 336. We have examined the records referred to and find that they lend ample support to the statements above quoted. The......
  • Burnet v. North American Oil Consolidated
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • September 14, 1931
    ...U. S. v. North American Oil Consolidated (D. C.) 242 F. 723. This decision was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals of this circuit (264 F. 336). The case was finally disposed of by the Supreme Court on March 21, 1922, when it issued its mandate dismissing the appeal thereto in pursuanc......
  • Fletcher v. Evening Star Newspaper Co., 8140.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • December 31, 1942
    ...v. Owl Drug Company, 9 Cir., 75 F.2d 45, certiorari denied, 295 U.S. 750, 55 S.Ct. 829, 79 L.Ed. 1694; United States v. North American Oil Consolidated, 9 Cir., 264 F. 336, affirming D.C. 1917, 242 F. 723, appeal dismissed 1922, 258 U.S. 633, 42 S.Ct. 315, 66 L.Ed. 802; Freshman v. Atkins, ......
  • 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