United States v. State of South Dakota
| Citation | 212 F.2d 14 |
| Decision Date | 29 April 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 14987.,14987. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA et al. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit) |
John F. Cotter, Atty., Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (Perry W. Morton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Clinton G. Richards, U. S. Atty., Deadwood, S. D., Roger P. Marquis and S. Billingsley Hill, Attys., Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., were on the brief), for appellant.
W. O. Knight and E. D. Barron, Asst. Attys. Gen., Ralph A. Dunham, Atty. Gen., for appellee State of South Dakota.
No appearance was entered nor brief filed for appellees Clyde Keller and Dick Mays.
Before SANBORN, THOMAS and JOHNSEN, Circuit Judges.
This is a condemnation proceeding brought by the United States to acquire the fee simple title to a 230-acre tract of land for use in connection with the Rapid City Air Force Base at Rapid City, South Dakota. The complaint alleges that the "interest * * * to be acquired is the fee simple title, subject, however, to existing easements for public roads and highways, public utilities, railroads and pipe lines."
A declaration of taking was filed at the commencement of the proceeding and $10,300 was deposited with the court as estimated just compensation.
A judgment on the declaration of taking was then entered directing that possession be delivered to the United States and providing that the cause be held open for such further orders, judgment and decrees as may be necessary.
The State of South Dakota was named as one of the parties "having or claiming an interest in the property." The State filed an answer in which it alleged that it is one of the sovereign states of the United States of America; that on December 8, 1941, the State was the owner in fee simple of the Southeast Quarter of Section 1, Township 2, Range 8, East of the Black Hills Meridian, Meade County, South Dakota, 130 acres of which is a part of the land sought to be condemned; that on December 8, 1941, it sold said land to Charles Forest, reserving to the State the deposits of coal, ores, metals, and other like substances in the land with the right to prospect for and remove the same upon rendering compensation to the owner for all damages that may be caused by such prospecting or removal, pursuant to Section 55.0203, S.D.C. 1939; and alleging further that the acquisition of such deposits of coal, ore, etc., is not necessary for the public use and purposes of the plaintiff, and praying that the court decree:
1. That the State is the owner of all such deposits, and
2. That the acquisition of such mineral rights is not necessary for the public uses for which the United States desires said premises and that the plaintiff has no right to acquire the same through eminent domain.
The parties stipulated that one Dick Mays is the lessee from the State of the oil and mineral rights in a portion of the land involved, and that the said Dick Mays has entered his appearance in this action and consents to be named as a defendant; that there has been no development of said mineral rights; and that the only question at issue in this action is the right of the United States to take the oil and mineral rights as a part of the fee title, the State claiming that the acquisition of such rights is not necessary for the public uses for which the United States desires said premises.
It was further stipulated that the question thus presented is a question of law for the court's determination.
The court made findings of fact and conclusions of law and adjudged:
"That the acquisition of such mineral rights is not necessary for the public uses and purposes for which the plaintiff United States desires said premises and that the said plaintiff has no right to acquire same through eminent domain."
And the court adjudged and decreed that the complaint insofar as it included the mineral estate vested in the State of South Dakota be dismissed.
The United States appealed from the judgment so entered contending that the court erred:
1. In dismissing the mineral interest from the taking on the ground that it "is not necessary"; and
2. In dismissing the mineral interest from the taking on the ground that "It is taken for a use that is not public."
In resolving the issues presented on this appeal it is essential to determine the controlling law. It is true as claimed by the Attorney General of the State of South Dakota that the State is one of the sovereign states of the United States. It is also true that the United States of America is a sovereign nation. Both sovereigns may own land and may acquire title thereto by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Mischke
...find little distinction between the instant case and United States v. Willis, 8 Cir., 211 F.2d 1, and we regard United States v. State of South Dakota, 8 Cir., 212 F.2d 14, 15, as virtually indistinguishable. In that case the Government sought to acquire, by condemnation, fee simple title t......
-
Southern Pacific Land Company v. United States, 19882.
...Mischke, 285 F.2d 628, 631-633 (8th Cir. 1961); United States v. Brondum, 272 F.2d 642, 646 (5th Cir. 1959); United States v. State of South Dakota, 212 F.2d 14 (8th Cir. 1954); United States v. Kansas City, 159 F.2d 125, 129 (10th Cir. 1946); and United States v. 6.74 Acres of Land, 148 F.......
-
United States v. 91.69 ACRES OF LAND, ETC.
...576 (1896); Luxton v. North River Bridge Co., 153 U.S. 525, 529-530, 14 S.Ct. 891, 38 L.Ed. 808 (1894); United States v. State of South Dakota, 212 F.2d 14, 16 (8th Cir. 1954). 2 An order of reference is not ordinarily appealable. Deckert v. Independence Shares Corp., 311 U.S. 282, 291, 61 ......
-
United States v. AN EASEMENT AND RIGHT-OF-WAY, ETC., DC6426.
...United States v. Willis, 211 F.2d 1 (8 Cir. 1954) cert. denied 347 U.S. 1015, 74 S.Ct. 871, 98 L.Ed. 1138 (1954); United States v. South Dakota, 212 F.2d 14 (8 Cir. 1954); United States v. Certain Real Estate, etc., 217 F.2d 920 (6 Cir. 1954); United States ex rel. and for Use of TVA v. Dug......