United States v. Springer, 68-1780.
| Citation | 321 F. Supp. 625 |
| Decision Date | 15 December 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 68-1780.,68-1780. |
| Court | United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Central District of California |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Curtis Howe SPRINGER (a/k/a Curtis H. Springer) and Helen Springer, husband and wife, Dr. Curtis H. Springer Foundation (a/k/a Dr. Curtis Howe Springer Foundation), Basic Food Products, and ZZYZX Community Church, Defendants. |
Robert L. Meyer, U. S. Atty., Ernestine Tolin, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff.
George W. Nilsson and Monta W. Shirley, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants.
In this action plaintiff has moved for partial summary judgment. Defendants have opposed such motion and the motion has been submitted for decision after argument both oral and written was presented to the Court.
Plaintiff is the owner of the real property which is the subject of this action in fee simple subject to the effect of mining claims covering the real property described in plaintiff's complaint and located by defendant Curtis Howe Springer. Plaintiff contends that defendants have been and are using such real property for various purposes, primarily for the purposes of a resort hotel operation and related facilities, as well as for a manufacturing plant for "health" foods and for other purposes including preparation of printed materials and tape recordings for radio broadcasts. Plaintiff contends that defendants are not entitled to use such real property other than for mining purposes. Defendants contend that defendant Curtis Howe Springer may use the surface of his mining claims for any purpose he desires.
From the record now before the Court it is clear that the United States is the owner in fee simple of the real property described in the complaint, subject only to the effect of the mining claims located by defendant Curtis Howe Springer. It is undisputed that the defendants have been and are using such property for purposes other than mining; that it is used for the purpose of a resort hotel operation and related facilities, and for a manufacturing plant for "health" foods and for other purposes including preparation of printed materials and tape recordings for radio broadcasts. It is also undisputed that there are on such real property a number of structures and facilities of various kinds, including four guest-room buildings aggregating 59 units, a dining room with kitchen facilities, an administration building, a chapel-meeting room, indoor and outdoor mineral baths, a number of out buildings, electrical facilities and various other structures and facilities. It is undisputed that defendants are using the real property for purposes other than prospecting, mining or processing minerals, or purposes reasonably incident to such mining activities.
It is clear that defendants intend to continue using such real property for purposes not related to mining.
Defendant Curtis Howe Springer has not secured a patent for his mining claims nor has he made payment for the lands in question.
Defendant Curtis Howe Springer located his mining claims prior to 1955. In 1955 the Congress enacted 30 U.S.C. § 612, which in sub-division (a) thereof states as follows:
"Any mining claim hereafter located under the mining laws of the United States shall not be used, prior to issuance of patent therefor, for any purposes other than prospecting, mining or processing operations and uses reasonably incident thereto."
Defendants contend that prior to 1955 there was no such limitation.
Defendants' contention just mentioned is without merit. See United States v. Nogueira, 403 F.2d 816, 824-825 (9th Cir. 1968). Prior to 1955 it would seem clear that a mining claimant could not use the claim for any purposes other than mining purposes and uses reasonably incident to mining, at least prior to the time that he had done everything to secure a patent even though he had not as yet actually received his patent. Teller...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Langley
...293 (9th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1014, 100 S.Ct. 663, 62 L.Ed.2d 643 (1980) (emphasis added). Accord, United States v. Springer, 321 F.Supp. 625, 627 (C.D.Cal. 1970) ("Prior to 1955 it would seem clear that a mining claimant could not use the claim for any purposes other than mini......
-
Swanson v. Holder
...612 existed prior to its enactment in 1955 and would still apply to Plaintiffs' mining claims and millsite. See United States v. Springer, 321 F. Supp. 625,627 (C.D. Cal. 1970) ("Prior to 1955 it would seem clear that a mining claimant could not use the claim for any purposes other than min......
-
United States v. Springer
...The early history of this case is related in an opinion of the District Court granting a partial summary judgment, United States v. Springer, 321 F.Supp. 625 (C.D.Cal.1970), followed by issuance of a preliminary injunction, and in an opinion of this Court affirming, United States v. Springe......
-
US v. HERBERT BRYANT, INC.
...States v. 1629.6 Acres of Land, More or Less, in Sussex County, State of Delaware, 503 F.2d 764 (3d Cir.1974); United States v. Springer, 321 F.Supp. 625 (C.D.Calif.1974), aff'd per curiam, 478 F.2d 43 (9th Cir. 1972); United States v. Osterlund, 505 F.Supp. 165 If the United States' claim ......
-
Future prospects for mining and public land management: the federal 'retention-disposal' policy enters the twenty-first century.
...misleading statements by BLM, property owner could not claim estoppel against voiding eleven mining claims); United States v. Springer, 321 F. Supp. 625, 627 (C.D. Cal. 1970) (holding that failure of government agents to prevent nonmining uses of the surface lands of mining claims combined ......