United States v. Ash Sheep Co.

221 F. 582, 137 C.C.A. 306, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 1357
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMarch 8, 1915
DocketNo. 2434
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 221 F. 582 (United States v. Ash Sheep Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Ash Sheep Co., 221 F. 582, 137 C.C.A. 306, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 1357 (9th Cir. 1915).

Opinions

ROSS, Circuit Judge.

This suit was brought by the government (appellant here) to enjoin an alleged trespass by the appellee (defendant below) on certain described lands alleged to be a part of the Crow Indian Reservation in the state of Montana; the bill alleging, among other things, that the lands referred to are a part of the vacant ceded Indian lands of the Crow tribe of Indians, whose title to the same ‘‘has not been extinguished, arid that said lands are subject to the rules and regulations made and promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior of the United States concerning Indian lands that have been opened for settlement and entry, dated November 27, 1911, and the act of Congress of the United States approved April 27, 1904 (33 Statutes at Large, page 352), entitled ‘An act to ratify and amend an agreement with the Indians of the Crow Reservation in Montana, and making appropriations to carry the same into effect.’ ”

[583]*583Tlic bill further alleges that about July 14, 1913, the defendant sheep company, in violation of the rules and regulations of the Secretary of the Interior, and of said act of Congress, grazed and caused to he grazed upon the lands in question and other vacant ceded Indian lands reserved for the use and benefit of the said Indians about 7,100 head of sheep, which are now trespassing thereon, the defendant company not having obtained authority therefor as provided by the rules and regulations of the Department of the Interior, or otherwise, and that the said defendant company threatens to continue to graze the said sheep on the said land and will do so unless restrained by the court, which acts constitute a continuing trespass, and will materially injure and destroy the use and value of the lands, and cause irreparable damage to the complainant and deprive the said Indians of the benefits to which they are entitled, by reason of which alleged unlawful acts the complainant and the said Indians are alleged to have been already damaged in the sum of $7,100.

The answer of the company, while expressly admitting the grazing of the sheep as alleged, and their threat and intention to continue such grazing, as well as the making and promulgation by the Secretary of the Interior of rules and regulations for the grazing of such lands as alleged in the complaint, set up that the lands in question were ceded to the United States by the said tribe of Indians, and have since constituted a portion of the public domain of the United States to which the said tribe of Indians have no claim, and that the said lands are not subject to the rules and regulations made and promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior in so far as they provide for the granting ot permits for the grazing of such lands and for the payment of rentals therefor, and further alleged “that the lands in question were public lands of the United States, and that, pursuant to the policy of the government of the United States as to the free use of public lands for grazing and pasturage purposes, defendant, a citizen of the United States owning the sheep in question, asserted its right under that privilege and policy and grazed its sheep on said lands,” and will continue so to do unless restrained therefrom; and denied that either the complainant or the Crow Indians have sustained or will sustain any damage by reason of the acts of the defendant company.

The cause corning on for hearing upon bill and answer, the court vacated the temporary restraining order that had been issued and gave judgment dismissing the suit, basing its action upon the view that the act of Congress which controls the case, and to which reference is now to be made, “incorporated the lauds in the general mass of public lands, subject to all the incidents of the latter and to be likewise disposed of.”

The act is that of April 27, 1904 (33 St. Lg. 352), entitled “An act to ratify and intend an agreement with the Indians of the Crow Reservation in Montana, and making appropriations to carry the same into effect.” After reciting the making and concluding of an agreement with the Indians of the Crow Reservation by commissioners theretofore appointed on behalf of the United States, and setting out at large such agreement, the act declares, in its first section, among other things:

[584]*584“That said agreement be, and the same is hereby, modified and amended to read as follows:
“ ‘Article 1. That the said Indians of the Crow Reservation do hereby cede, grant and relinquish to the United States all right, title and interest which they may have to the lands embraced within and bounded by the following described lines: Beginning at the northeast corner of the said Crow Indian Reservation; thence running due south to a point lying due east of the northeast corner of the Fort Custer Military Reservation; thence running due west to the northwest corner of said Fort Custer Military Reservation; thence due south to the southwest corner of said Fort Custer Military Reservation; thence due west to the intersection of the line between sections ten and eleven, township two south, range twenty-eight east of the principal meridian of Montana; thence due north to the intersection of the Montana base line; thence due west to the intersection of the western boundary of the Crow Indian Reservation; thence in a northeasterly direction, following the present boundary of said reservation to point of beginning.
“ ‘Art. 2. That in consideration of the land ceded, granted, relinquished, and conveyed by article one of this agreement the United States stipulates, and agrees to dispose of the same as hereinafter provided under the provisions of the reclamation act approved June seventeenth, nineteen hundred and two, the homestead, town-site, and mineral-land laws, except sections sixteen and thirty-six, or an equivalent of two sections in each township, at not less than four dollars per acre, subject to the provisions in section five, the United States to pay for sections sixteen and thirty-six, or an equivalent of two sections in each township, at one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre, and to pay the said Indians the proceeds derived from the sale of said lands, and for the said sections sixteen and thirty-six, or an equivalent of two sections in each township, as follows’ ” (setting forth various provisions in respect to payments, and other matters not necessary to be specifically mentioned). ,

Sections 2, 5, and 8 of the act read:

“Sec. 2. That the said agreement be, and the same is hereby, accepted, ratified, and confirmed, as herein amended. * * *
“Sec. 5. That before any of the lands by this agreement ceded are opened to settlement or entry the Commissioner of Indian Affairs shall cause the allotments to be made and the schedule to be prepared, as provided for in section four of this act, and a duplicate of said schedule shall be filed with the Commissioner of the General Land Office. Upon the completion of such allotments and the filing of such schedule and after the sale or removal of such improvements, the residue of such ceded lands, except sections sixteen and thirty-six, or lands in lieu thereof, which shall be reserved for common school purposes, and are hereby granted to the state of Montana for such purpose, shall be subject to withdrawal and disposition under-the reclamation Act of June seventeenth, nineteen hundred and two, so far as feasible irrigation projects may be found therein.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ash Sheep Co. v. United States
250 F. 591 (Ninth Circuit, 1918)
United States v. Ash Sheep Co.
229 F. 479 (D. Montana, 1916)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
221 F. 582, 137 C.C.A. 306, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 1357, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-ash-sheep-co-ca9-1915.