United States v. Cline

199 F. Supp. 676, 1961 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2989
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina
DecidedDecember 6, 1961
DocketCiv. No. 1954
StatusPublished

This text of 199 F. Supp. 676 (United States v. Cline) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Cline, 199 F. Supp. 676, 1961 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2989 (W.D.N.C. 1961).

Opinion

WARLICK, Chief Judge.

This is an action in ejectment instituted by plaintiff, the United States of America, against Fred Cline and wife, Luzene Cline, for the alleged purpose of determining the ownership of two separate tracts of land located in Swain County, in the Western District of North Carolina,' to thereby secure possession thereof, and to recover damages for the unlawful detention and use by the defendants.

The trial was by consent had in the Asheville Division and was heard at the July-August 1961 term without a jury. The action was instituted under and by the direction of the Attorney General of the United States and jurisdiction in this court is had under Title 28, Sec. 1345, U.S.C.A.

Prior to the trial five stipulations were agreed upon by counsel representing the parties and from these stipulations, the admissions in the pleadings, and the evidence heard, the following findings of fact and conclusions of law are made.

Findings of Fact

The defendants, Fred Cline and Luzene Cline, are residents of Swain County, North Carolina, and the lands which are the subject of this action are located in said County and in the Western District.

Prior to July 1, 1924 the Eastern Band of .Cherokee Indians held title in fee simple and was the owner and in possession of all of the lands in the State of North Carolina known as the Qualla Boundary of the Cherokee Indian Reservation, containing more than 50,000 acres.

On July 1, 1924 the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indian's conveyed in fee simple to the Town of Bryson City, in Swain County, North Carolina, a tract of land within said Qualla Boundary on and extending up the Oconaluftee River within the reservoir area of a proposed dam being constructed by the Town of Bryson City, said tract being more particularly described in a deed dated July 1, 1924 and recorded in Book 51 at page 569 and succeeding pages, in the office of the Register of Deeds of Swain County, North Carolina.

On July 21, 1925 the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians conveyed to the United States of America, as Trustee for the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians and its members, all lands in the State of North Carolina known as the Cherokee Indian Reservation, including the Qualla Boundary, and more fully described in a deed recorded in Deed Book 52 at page 353 and following pages, in the Public Registry for Swain County, North Carolina.

The defendants, Fred Cline and Luzene Cline, are now, and have been for several years, occupying two certain tracts of land which are parts of the original Qualla Boundary, which said tracts are set out and fully described in paragraph Five of the Complaint in this action; the tracts are designated as Tracts One and Two.

That the title to Tract No. Two is in the United States in trust for the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians and is embraced in the lands conveyed to the United States of America as such Trustee by the deed dated July 21, 1925; and recorded in Book 52 at page 353 et seq. in the office of the Register of Deeds for Swain County, North Carolina; and that the right to the possessory use of all or any part thereof, as among different members of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, shall be subject to the decision of the Tribal Council and/or its duly authorized committee.

The question to be determined in this action is the location of the boundary lines of the tract described in the deed from the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians to the Town of Bryson City, above referred to, as of July 1, 1924. And further that title to Tract No. One is in the [678]*678United States except as to any portion or all of said Tract No. One which might be found to lie within the boundary of the land conveyed to the Town of Bryson City.

Subsequently on July 1, 1942, this same tract of land was conveyed by the Town of Bryson City to the Nantahala Power and Light Company and became a part of its hydro-electric development in that section of North Carolina.

Plaintiff among other things contends that the property being occupied at this time by the defendants and every part thereof lies within the original boundary of the Qualla Reservation, and is a part of those lands conveyed to it as trustee by the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians on July 21, 1925; and that by reason of such conveyance it is the owner of such property as trustee in fee simple for the purposes intended and is entitled to the immediate possession thereof.

' The defendants admit that the property in question was originally within the Qualla Boundary. They do not assert or claim a superior title in themselves, but on the contrary set their defenses to this action on the grounds that title to the property claimed and in question is not in the plaintiff, the United States, as trustee, but belongs wholly to the Nantahala Power and Light Company, grantee from the Town of Bryson City. That is to say the defendants contend that the property involved in this controversy ■was embraced in the conveyance made by the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians to the Town of Bryson City by the deed of July 1, 1924, and that it could not have been embraced in that tract of land subsequently conveyed to the plaintiff by the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians on July 21,1925. A survey thereof would more likely be the best means of determining those lands embraced in said deeds.

The plaintiff offered the testimony of William R. Davis, a graduate civil engineer and land surveyor, and evidence from W. R. Cabe, Chief Civil Engineer for the Nantahala Power and Light Company, both of whom have surveyed the lands embraced in the deed from the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians to the Town of Bryson City; and that previous to the trial a map was made by Mr. Davis which Mr. Cabe states is practically identical in every way with his survey. This map was offered in evidence and used not only as evidence to explain the testimony of the witnesses but as substantive evidence as to calls, courses and distances, embraced in said deed. Both witnesses stated that in making their surveys they found evidences of previous surveys having been made, and that the survey run by each was practically identical with such previous surveys as indicated by markers found, and irons indicating corners located and other evidences seen, and that the map shows the exact results of the surveys and represents not only the lands contained in the deed to the Town of Bryson City but truly depicts the dividing lines between such lands and those held by plaintiff as trustee of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians.

That tract of land set out in the deed from the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians to the Town of Bryson City dated July 1, 1924, as said tract adjoins the property now in' possession of the defendants Fred Cline and Luzene Cline, and is contained within the boundaries of the red line as marked on the map offered in evidence; it does not include any portion of the property described as tract No. 1, or in the possession of the defendants, with' the exception of a few points where the red line touches the rear retaining wall constituting the southern foundation wall of the buildings on said property at a height of sixteen to eighteen inches.

From said map together with the evidence offered in explanation it is found as a fact that the true boundary line on July 1, 1924, and continuing up to the present date, between the lands conveyed to the Town óf Bryson City by the deed of July 1, 1924, and the lands conveyed to the United States in trust for the Eastern Band of Cherokee [679]

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

Related

United States v. Colvard
89 F.2d 312 (Fourth Circuit, 1937)
Kuhn v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co.
118 F.2d 400 (Fourth Circuit, 1941)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
199 F. Supp. 676, 1961 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2989, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-cline-ncwd-1961.