Watson v. United States
| Decision Date | 01 March 1920 |
| Docket Number | 5418. |
| Citation | 263 F. 700 |
| Parties | WATSON v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
C. S Macdonald, of Pawhuska, Okl. (T. J. Leahy and Swan C Burnett, both of Pawhuska, Okl., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.
Frank E. Ransdell, Asst. U.S. Atty., of Oklahoma City, Okl. (John A. Fain, U.S. Atty., of Lawton, Okl., on the brief), for the United States.
Before SANBORN, Circuit Judge, and LEWIS and MUNGER, District Judges.
The petition contains thirty-nine causes of action. They are alike. Each seeks to recover the reasonable rental value of pasture lands. The lands described in each count are Osage Indian Allotments held in trust by the United States. Each count contained in substance this allegation: That the defendant went upon said tract of land (describing it) during the aforesaid period of time and enclosed, used and occupied the same and appropriated the grass thereon without the consent of said Indian allottee or the Secretary of the Interior, and without any lease or contract for the use of the same, and without paying anything to the allottee or the Secretary for the use of the land and the grass thereon appropriated.
There was a demurrer, which was overruled, attacking the jurisdiction of the court, the capacity of the plaintiff to maintain the action, and the sufficiency of the facts stated as a basis for any relief. Those questions are brought here by the assignments. The answer is a general denial, statutory bar by limitation of time, and payment in full to the several allottees for the use made of the lands.
There was substantial evidence in support of each count. The defendant below did not offer any evidence. At the close both sides moved for verdict and judgment. The motion of each was sustained in part, but the court directed verdicts and judgment for defendant in error to a total of Eighteen Hundred and Four and 16/100 Dollars ($1,804.16).
It is argued here that no cause of action is stated because the petition in each count seeks to recover for use and occupation, which is not maintainable where the relation of landlord and tenant does not exist. If we so characterized or limited the purpose of the counts the legal principle contended for would apply, in the absence of statutory change. See Adsit v. Kaufman, 121 F. 355, 58 C.C.A 33 and cases cited; Hennessey v. Hoag, 16 Colo. 460 27 P. 1061, and Lloyd v. Hough, 1 How. 153, 11 L.Ed. 83. But it does not take much to raise the implied promise to pay on the part of the occupant, as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hammond v. County of Madera
...for loss of use and enjoyment of their land which they claim resulted from the trespass. The instant case is similar to Watson v. United States, 263 F. 700 (8th Cir.1920). There, defendant used and occupied Osage Indian Allotments held in trust by the United States without consent of the In......
-
Bramwell v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
...58 C.C.A. 42; United States v. Comet Oil & Gas Co. (C.C.) 187 F. 674; United States v. Gray, 201 F. 291, 119 C.C.A. 529; Watson v. United States (C.C.A.) 263 F. 700; Central Nat. Bank of Tulsa v. United States 283 F. 368; United States v. State of Oklahoma, 261 U.S. 253, 43 Sup.Ct. 295, 67 ......
-
United States v. Mercur Corporation, 225.
...Power & Light Co. v. United States, 243 U.S. 389, 37 S.Ct. 387, 61 L.Ed. 791; Schradsky v. Stimson, 76 F. 730 (C.C.A.8); Watson v. United States, 263 F. 700 (C.C.A.8). Whether, therefore, Mercur Corporation be regarded as a lessee paying a rent measured by a percentage of the net profits or......
-
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Bramwell
... ... manages their affairs, collects and disburses funds intended ... for their benefit, and may sue to enforce and protect their ... rights and obligations (U.S. v. Fidelity Trust, 121 ... F. 766, 58 C.C.A. 42; U.S. v. Comet Oil & Gas Co ... (C.C.) 187 F. 674; Watson v. U.S. (C.C.A.) 263 ... F. 700; U.S. v. Gray, 201 F. 291, 119 C.C.A. 529; ... Central Nat. Bank of Tulsa v. U.S. (C.C.A.) 283 F ... 368; U.S. v. Thurston, 143 F. 287, 74 C.C.A. 425); ... and when it causes money received by it through its officers ... for the use and benefit of the Indians, ... ...
-
CHAPTER 3 ACCESSING INDIAN LANDS FOR MINERAL DEVELOPMENT
...Company, 592 F.Supp. 9766, 1005 (D. Kan. 1984). [380] .Hammond v. Madera, 859 F.2d 797, 804 (9%gth%g Cir. 1988); Watson v. United States, 263 F. 700, 702 (8%gth%g Cir. 1920); United States v. Imperial Irrigation District, 799 F.Supp. 1052, 1066 (S.D.Cal. 1992). [381] .Hammond, 859 F.2d at 8......