United States v. Threlkeld, No. 1000.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtPHILLIPS, McDERMOTT, and BRATTON, Circuit
Citation72 F.2d 464
Docket NumberNo. 1000.
Decision Date28 July 1934
PartiesUNITED STATES v. THRELKELD.

72 F.2d 464 (1934)

UNITED STATES
v.
THRELKELD.
*

No. 1000.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

July 28, 1934.


Harry W. Blair, Asst. Atty. Gen. (William J. Barker, U. S. Atty., of Santa Fe, N. M., and A. Gilberto Espinosa, Asst. U. S. Atty., and E. S. French, Regional Law Officer, Department of Agriculture, both of Albuquerque, N. M., on the brief), for the United States.

George Threlkeld, of Roswell, N. M., pro se.

Before PHILLIPS, McDERMOTT, and BRATTON, Circuit Judges.

BRATTON, Circuit Judge.

This is a condemnation proceeding to acquire certain privately owned land, a part of a homestead granted under the provisions of 16 USCA § 506, within the exterior boundaries of the Lincoln National Forest in New Mexico, deemed by the Secretary of Agriculture to be necessary for highway, logging railroad, skidway, and landing ground purposes in connection with the administration, protection, and development of the forest; the particular need being thus stated in the petition:

"Of removing, or having removed thereover the dead, matured and large growth of trees upon plaintiff's said forest known as the Lincoln National Forest, and transporting timber so removed from said forest to practical points for the manufacture and marketing thereof, and

"For the purpose of ingress and egress to said forest for the transportation of men, supplies and equipment for the maintenance and preservation of said forest, and the prevention and extinguishment of fires therein, and

"For use as a permanent highway for the administration, protection, development and improvement of said Lincoln National Forest, and

"For the use of the people of the United States visiting said forest for health, recreation and enjoyment."

The trial court sustained a demurrer in which the sufficiency of the petition was challenged on the ground that the power of eminent domain did not exist for the stated

72 F.2d 465
purposes, and dismissed the case. The appeal presents the correctness of that action

The Secretary of Agriculture is charged with the administration of the national forests. 16 USCA cc. 2, 3 (section 471 et seq.; § 551 et seq.). It is provided by statute that, when an officer of the government is authorized to procure real estate for public use, it may be acquired by condemnation if in his opinion it is necessary or advantageous to the government to make the acquisition in that manner. 40 USCA § 257.

That power is subject to the requirement that just compensation be made, an obligation imposed by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Phelps v. United States, 274 U. S. 341, 47 S. Ct. 611, 71 L. Ed. 1083. The petition follows the statute almost verbatim with respect to the necessity and advantage of making the acquisition in question, and it is alleged that the Secretary of Agriculture requested the institution of the suit.

The court may determine in a proceeding of this kind the nature of the proposed use, that is, whether it is public or private, United States v. Gettysburg Electric Ry. Co., 160 U. S. 668, 16 S. Ct. 427, 40 L. Ed. 576; Hairston v. Danville & Western Ry. Co., 208 U. S. 598, 28 S. Ct. 331, 52 L. Ed. 637, 13 Ann. Cas. 1008; Rindge v. Los Angeles, 262 U. S. 700, 43 S. Ct. 689, 67 L. Ed. 1186; Cincinnati v. Vester, 281 U. S. 439, 50 S. Ct. 360, 74 L. Ed. 950; but, in the absence of bad faith, and if the use is a public one, the necessity for the desired property as a part thereof or the expediency of appropriating it thereto is not a question for judicial determination. It is one for the legislative branch of the government, and its determination may be delegated. Chappell v. United States, 160 U. S. 499, 16 S. Ct. 397, 40 L. Ed. 510; Backus v. Depot Co., 169 U. S. 557, 18 S. Ct. 445, 42 L. Ed. 853; Kaw Valley Drainage Dist. v. Metropolitan Water Co. (C. C. A.) 186 F. 315, certiorari denied 220 U. S. 615, 31 S. Ct. 719, 55 L. Ed. 610; United States v. O'Neill (D. C.) 198 F. 677.

It is contended, however, that the law authorizing condemnation of private property for public use does not apply to a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
38 practice notes
  • United States v. Meyer, No. 7148
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • July 23, 1940
    ...Co., 160 U.S. 668, 16 S.Ct. 427, 40 L.Ed. 576; Barnidge v. United States, 8 Cir., 101 F.2d 295; United States v. Threlkeld, 10 Cir., 72 F.2d 464; certiorari denied, 293 U.S. 620, 55 S.Ct. 215, 79 L.Ed. 708; 2 Cooley, Constitutional Limitations (8th Ed.1927), pp. 1145-1147; 1 Lewis, Eminent ......
  • United States v. Big Bend Transit Co., No. 53.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of Washington
    • December 31, 1941
    ...Dominion Land Co. v. United States, 4 Cir., 296 F. 20; Id., 269 U.S. 55, 46 S.Ct. 39, 70 L.Ed. 162; United States v. Threlkeld, 10 Cir., 72 F.2d 464, certiorari denied, 293 U.S. 620, 55 S.Ct. 215, 79 L.Ed. 708; Barnidge v. United States, 8 Cir., 101 F.2d Defendant's rights are claimed under......
  • In re United States, No. 2262
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Western District of New York
    • May 19, 1939
    ...United States v. 80 Acres, D.C., 26 F.Supp. 315; United States v. 2,271.69 Acres, D.C., 31 F.2d 617; United States v. Threlkeld, 10 Cir., 72 F.2d 464; certiorari denied, 293 U.S. 620, 55 S.Ct. 215, 79 L.Ed. 708; Greenwood County v. Duke Power Co., 4 Cir., 81 F.2d 986; Duke Power Co. v. Gree......
  • Williams v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., Civ. A. No. 1043.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • March 23, 1950
    ...same effect. Coggeshall v. U. S., 4 Cir., 95 F.2d 986; U. S. ex rel. T. V. A. v. Welch, 4 Cir., 150 F.2d 613; U. S. v. Threlkeld, 10 Cir., 72 F.2d 464; Shasta Power Co. v. Walker, 9 Cir., 149 F. 568; Atlantic Coast-Line Ry. Co. v. Town of Sebring, 5 Cir., 12 F.2d American Jurisprudence thus......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
38 cases
  • United States v. Meyer, No. 7148
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • July 23, 1940
    ...Co., 160 U.S. 668, 16 S.Ct. 427, 40 L.Ed. 576; Barnidge v. United States, 8 Cir., 101 F.2d 295; United States v. Threlkeld, 10 Cir., 72 F.2d 464; certiorari denied, 293 U.S. 620, 55 S.Ct. 215, 79 L.Ed. 708; 2 Cooley, Constitutional Limitations (8th Ed.1927), pp. 1145-1147; 1 Lewis, Eminent ......
  • United States v. Big Bend Transit Co., No. 53.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of Washington
    • December 31, 1941
    ...Dominion Land Co. v. United States, 4 Cir., 296 F. 20; Id., 269 U.S. 55, 46 S.Ct. 39, 70 L.Ed. 162; United States v. Threlkeld, 10 Cir., 72 F.2d 464, certiorari denied, 293 U.S. 620, 55 S.Ct. 215, 79 L.Ed. 708; Barnidge v. United States, 8 Cir., 101 F.2d Defendant's rights are claimed under......
  • In re United States, No. 2262
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court of Western District of New York
    • May 19, 1939
    ...United States v. 80 Acres, D.C., 26 F.Supp. 315; United States v. 2,271.69 Acres, D.C., 31 F.2d 617; United States v. Threlkeld, 10 Cir., 72 F.2d 464; certiorari denied, 293 U.S. 620, 55 S.Ct. 215, 79 L.Ed. 708; Greenwood County v. Duke Power Co., 4 Cir., 81 F.2d 986; Duke Power Co. v. Gree......
  • Williams v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., Civ. A. No. 1043.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • March 23, 1950
    ...same effect. Coggeshall v. U. S., 4 Cir., 95 F.2d 986; U. S. ex rel. T. V. A. v. Welch, 4 Cir., 150 F.2d 613; U. S. v. Threlkeld, 10 Cir., 72 F.2d 464; Shasta Power Co. v. Walker, 9 Cir., 149 F. 568; Atlantic Coast-Line Ry. Co. v. Town of Sebring, 5 Cir., 12 F.2d American Jurisprudence thus......
  • 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