Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 70 views

    United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States sought to quiet title to land that was originally granted to Utah as school land but was later included in an Indian reservation. Appellants claimed ownership of an unpatented mining claim on the land and sought to intervene in the quiet title action. The court denied the motion to intervene, finding that the appellants' interests were adequately represented by the United States in contesting Utah's claim, the appellants would not be bound by any decree since they were not parties, and their intervention would unduly delay and prejudice the original parties.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    70 views4 pages
    The United States sought to quiet title to land that was originally granted to Utah as school land but was later included in an Indian reservation. Appellants claimed ownership of an unpatented mining claim on the land and sought to intervene in the quiet title action. The court denied the motion to intervene, finding that the appellants' interests were adequately represented by the United States in contesting Utah's claim, the appellants would not be bound by any decree since they were not parties, and their intervention would unduly delay and prejudice the original parties.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1959-06-10 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 268 F.2d 687 Docket: 6014_1

    Original Title

    Elizabeth Archer, Noland Schneider, Patricia Schneider, Joel Burns, Peggy Burns, Audrey Whipple, John R. Whipple and O. Webster Adams, Jr. v. United States of America, State of Utah, George N. Larsen, Western States Refining Company, a Corporation, Max B. Lewis, T. W. Notestine, Continental Bank & Trust Company, a Corporation, Trustee, and the Superior Oil Company, a Corporation, 268 F.2d 687, 10th Cir. (1959)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States sought to quiet title to land that was originally granted to Utah as school land but was later included in an Indian reservation. Appellants claimed ownership of an unpatented mining claim on the land and sought to intervene in the quiet title action. The court denied the motion to intervene, finding that the appellants' interests were adequately represented by the United States in contesting Utah's claim, the appellants would not be bound by any decree since they were not parties, and their intervention would unduly delay and prejudice the original parties.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    70 views4 pages

    United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States sought to quiet title to land that was originally granted to Utah as school land but was later included in an Indian reservation. Appellants claimed ownership of an unpatented mining claim on the land and sought to intervene in the quiet title action. The court denied the motion to intervene, finding that the appellants' interests were adequately represented by the United States in contesting Utah's claim, the appellants would not be bound by any decree since they were not parties, and their intervention would unduly delay and prejudice the original parties.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 4

    268 F.

    2d 687

    Elizabeth ARCHER, Noland Schneider, Patricia Schneider,


    Joel
    Burns, Peggy Burns, Audrey Whipple, John R.
    Whipple and O. Webster Adams, Jr., Appellants,
    v.
    UNITED STATES of America, State of Utah, George N.
    Larsen,
    Western States Refining Company, a corporation, Max B.
    Lewis, T. W. Notestine, Continental Bank & Trust Company, a
    corporation, Trustee, and The Superior Oil Company, a
    corporation, Appellees.
    No. 6014.

    United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.


    June 10, 1959.

    Gordon I. Hyde, Salt Lake City, Utah, for appellants.


    Claron C. Spencer, Atty., Dept. of Justice (Perry W. Morton, Asst. Atty.
    Gen., A. Pratt Kesler, U.S. Atty., C. Nelson Day, Asst. U.S. Atty., Salt
    Lake City, Utah, and Roger P. Marquis, Atty., Dept. of Justice,
    Washington, D.C., were with him on the brief), for appellee United States.
    No appearance for appellees State of Utah, George N. Larsen, Western
    States Refining Co., Max B. Lewis, T.W. Notestine, Continental Bank &
    Trust Co., Trustee, and The Superior Oil Co.
    Before MURRAH, LEWIS, and BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judges.
    BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judge.

    The question is whether the appellants, who claim ownership of an unpatented


    mining claim1 located on land involved in a quiet title suit brought by the
    United States, may intervene in that action.

    The land was part of a school land grant to Utah. Upon survey it was found to
    be within a reservation set apart for the Navajo Tribe of Indians. When, prior to
    survey, granted land was included within an Indian reservation, the state was
    permitted to select other land in lieu thereof.2 Utah by statute provided that
    mineral deposits on state lands were reserved from disposition except on a
    rental or royalty basis,3 and asserts that the waiver of the state's claim to
    granted school land upon the selection of lieu land did not convey the minerals
    therein to the United States.

    The Navajo Tribe, with the approval of the United States, gave an oil and gas
    lease covering the pertinent area and other land to The Superior Oil Company.
    Utah gave a similar lease in which appellees Larsen, Western States Refining
    Company, Lewis, Notestine, and Continental Bank & Trust Company claim an
    interest.

    The United States seeks to quiet its title, subject to the Superior lease, against
    Utah and the named defendants claiming under the Utah lease. Appellants,
    asserting their ownership of the unpatented mining claim, moved to intervene
    and with their motion submitted an answer in which they denied that the United
    States had fee simple title to the land included within the mining claim and
    prayed for a decree adverse to the Navajo Tribe and its lessee, Superior. In a
    proposed cross-claim the appellants asserted the validity of their title as against
    the defendants and prayed for a decree quieting their title. The motion for leave
    to intervene was denied.

    The United States, like any other owner of property, may have its property
    rights adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction.4 Here the United States
    seeks to quiet its title as against the claims of the named defendants. It seeks no
    relief against the appellants. Whatever right they have to intervene must be
    exercised under Rule 24, F.R.C-v.P., 28 U.S.C.A., which permits intervention
    as a matter of right when representation of the applicant's interest is inadequate
    and the applicant may be bound by the judgment in the action. Each
    requirement is absent.

    The defeat of the claim of Utah and those claiming under Utah is essential to
    both the United States and the appellants. The interest of the United States is
    far greater than that of the appellants as it concerns substantially more land.
    This is not a case like United States v. Martin, 10 Cir., 267 F.2d 764, in which
    intervention was allowed over the objection of the United States. There the
    United States alleged in its complaint that the basic document was contractual
    in nature. The interveners asserted rights based on that document. The court

    held that vested rights of the interveners, even without the contract, could not
    be taken without just compensation and that the intervention presented 'a claim
    upon which relief can be granted as one arising out of a constitutionally implied
    contract within the meaning of the Tucker Act.'
    7

    In the Martin case there was a direct conflict of interest between the interveners
    and the United States and there was no representation of the interveners in the
    main case. Here the United States is vigorously contesting the claim of Utah. In
    this regard it is representing the interests of the appellants and we shall not
    assume that such representation will be inadequate.5

    While the United States in its complaint avers the validity of the Superior lease,
    it does so to protect the title of its lessee against the claims of Utah and its
    lessee. In so doing it does not seek any determination as to the relative rights of
    Superior and the appellants because it did not make appellants parties to the
    suit. Both Superior and the appellants assert rights derived from the United
    States. The establishment of the basic title of the United States benefits both
    Superior and the appellants. The suggestion that the inclusion of Superior as a
    party is to prefer Superior over appellants can only amount to a charge that the
    government is acting in bad faith. We reject any such insinuation. The good
    faith efforts of the United States to maintain its title as against Utah and those
    claiming under Utah assures adequate representation for the appellants in
    litigation to defeat the Utah claims.

    The appellants will not be bound by any decree which may be entered herein in
    the sense that it will be res judicata. This is not an action in rem as the
    proceedings do not purport to affect the interests of all persons in the property.6
    A proceeding to affect only the interests of particular persons is a proceeding
    quasi in rem.7 As the appellants are not parties, their rights cannot be
    determined by any decree entered herein.8

    10

    Because the appellants derive whatever rights they may have from the United
    States, a decree in favor of Utah and its successors will have a binding adverse
    effect unless the appellants by reason of their situation can establish a right
    created prior to the grant under which Utah claims. The existence of such a
    right may not be determined in this action to which appellants are not parties.
    For example, if the mining claim was in existence prior to the Utah grant and
    was excluded therefrom and remained subject to the mining laws of the United
    States, the rights of the appellants to that mining claim may not be determined
    herein.

    11

    If the United States prevails, then the appellants have those rights to which they

    11

    If the United States prevails, then the appellants have those rights to which they
    are entitled under the mining laws. This action will not determine whether
    Superior, the Navajo oil and gas lessee, or the appellants have the better title.
    No decree in favor of the United States may determine the conflicting claims of
    Superior and the appellants.

    12

    While the appellants do not rely on permissive intervention under Rule 24(b),
    we note in passing that such rule is not helpful to them as intervention
    thereunder is discretionary and in the exercise of that discretion the court is
    required to consider 'whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the
    adjudication of the rights of the original parties.' It is clear that in this case there
    would be such delay and prejudice.

    13

    The appellants have not satisfied the requirements of Rule 24. This makes it
    unnecessary to consider the other points raised in the briefs.

    14

    Affirmed.

    The appellants do not claim ownership of a patented claim and it is apparent


    from the record that no patent has ever been issued for the claim

    43 U.S.C.A. 851-853

    1953 U.C.A. 65-1-15

    Rex Trailer Co. v. United States, 350 U.S. 148, 151, 76 S.Ct. 219, 100 L.Ed.
    149

    Cf. MacDonald v. United States, 9 Cir., 119 F.2d 821, 827, mod. sub nom.
    Great Northern Ry. v. United States, 315 U.S. 262, 62 S.Ct. 529, 86 L.Ed. 836

    Restatement, Judgments, 32, comment a

    Restatement, ibid. Cf. Albion-Idaho Land Co. v. Naf Irr. Co., 10 Cir., 97 F.2d
    439, 444

    United States v. State of Oregon, 295 U.S. 1, 12, 55 S.Ct. 610, 79 L.Ed. 1267

    You might also like