United States v. Kirk

248 F. 30, 1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 1276
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedDecember 31, 1917
DocketNos. 4975-4978
StatusPublished

This text of 248 F. 30 (United States v. Kirk) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth 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. Kirk, 248 F. 30, 1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 1276 (8th Cir. 1917).

Opinion

GARLAND, Circuit Judge.

The above-entitled actions were commenced by the United States for the purpose of having canceled for fraud certain land patents conveying coal land in Routt county, Colo. After a hearing on pleadings and proofs the actions were dismissed, and the United States appealed. The appeals have been submitted upon one brief and argument on both sides.

Case No. 4975 involves a coal land entry made April 11, 1903, in the name of W. U. Beach for which patent issued July 23, 1903, conveying 155.75 acres. The entryman by quitclaim deed conveyed the land to appellee on April 13-, 1903. The complaint in this case as amended alleged that on or about March 21, 1902, appellee unlawfully and fraudulently entered into a combination and conspiracy with Frank V. Kirk, W. U. Beach, Henry Stevens, Itugene Wilder, Addison F. Orr, and Walter H. Nichols for the purpose of fraudulently purchasing and entering the land described in the above land patent in the name of and ostensibly for Beach, but in reality for appellee and her associates, in order to cheat and defraud the United States out of said land, and thereby procure for said appellee and her associates more than 160 acres of coal laud in violation of the statutes of the United States in such case made and provided and in violation of the rules and regulations issued by the Commissioner of the General Land Office, relating to the entry aud purchase of public vacant coal land; that in order to effect the object of said conspiracy appellee and her said associates caused and procured Beach to prepare, sign, and file with the register and receiver of the United States land office at Glenwood Springs, Colo., ostensibly for himself, but in reality for appellee and her said associates, all the nee-cessary and proper applications, affidavits, proofs, and papers required by law or regulation to be signed and filed to obtain title from the United States to the vacant public coal land described in the above patent; that the coal “declaratory statement” filed by Beach was false in this, that it was not the intention of declarant to purchase said coal land for himself, but for appellee and her associates, and it was not true that said declarant had taken possession of any of said land, or had expended money upon any mine thereon; that the “affidavit at purchase” filed by Beach was false in this, that it was not true that he had expended any money in developing a coal mine upon said land; that it was not true that he had ever been in the actual possession of a coal mine on said land; that it was not true that he had made said coal land entry for his own use and benefit, and not directly or indirectly for the use or benefit of any other person; that in the purchase of said coal land Beach used the money of appellee to purchase the same for the sole use and benefit o f appellee and her associates in order that she or they might make more than one coal cash entry of coal land; that at the time of said conspiracy, and the entry of said land by Beach, appellee and Frank V. Kirk, her husband, were and had been for many years prior thereto disqualified to enter or purchase either directly or indirectly public coal lands for the reason that they had exercised and exhausted all their rights so to do under the law; that at the time of the entry of said land by Beach appellee and her husband, Frank V. Kirk, were members of an association of persons who were seeking to [32]*32acquire a greater quantity of public coal land than lawfully could be acquired by said associates.

.The answer of appellee denied all fraud, and alleged that 'Beach, appellee, and Frank V. Kirk, were all qualified to enter and purchase public coal land; that Beach entered the land in question for the benefit of Frank V. Kirk, the purchase money being borrowed by appellee from one L. S. Young, and turned over to her husband Frank V. Kirk; that Beach, at Frank V. Kirk’s request, conveyed the land to appellee to bé held by her in trust for Kirk as security for the repayment of the purchase money borrowed as aforesaid. The answer also denied that Beach, appellee, or Kirk belonged to an association, the members of which were seeking to acquire more coal land than they were entitled to under the laws of the United States. We have carefully read the evidence which is applicable generally to all the cases now being considered, and find that the statement of facts set forth in- the brief of counsel for the United States is a fair statement of what the evidence shows. That statement is as follows: -

“In about tbe year 1890 a number of residents of Boulder, Colo., and their friends, among them being'Henry Stevens, Addison F. Orr, Eugene Wilder, Marie Wilder, Samuel S. Eddy, Frank V. Kirk, Lillian Kirk, Jacob Switzer, De Witt C. Bryant, and perhaps others, conceived the idea of acquiring a large tract of public coal lands situate in the vicinity of Pilot Knob Mountain, in Itoutt county, Colo. For this purpose each. of these persons contributed a small amount and had survey made of the lands, so that the same could he designated by legal descriptions. About 4,000 acres of these lands were surveyed and coal declaratory filings in the name of the respective interested persons made on respective quarter sections of said lands. At the end of a year from the date of these initial coal declaratory filings these persons, not being able or willing to purchase the lands from the government, or any tract thereof, in order to continue to control these-lands, placed accommodation coal declaratory filings on the lands in the names of» friends and acquaintances, who for this purpose signed proper papers and permitted the use of their respective names, the original group of persons paying all the expenses attendant upon the making of this second group of filings. In this manner successive filings were made upon the lands originally filed upon, or a part thereof, from year to year, up to and including the year 1902. During this period certain of the origihal filers dropped out, while certain other persons became interested in the holding of these lands, and it transpired that in January, 1908, certain of the lands originally filed upon by these original associates were being held under filings controlled by certain of these associates, namely, Stevens, Orr, Wilder, Marie Wilder, Eddy, Frank Y. Kirk, Lillian Kirk, and Bryant. During January and February, 1903, Stevens, Orr,. Wilder, and Itirk interested one Walter H. Nichols in the deal, explaining, to Nichols that Stevens represented a number of persons who had made coal filings on coal lands in Itoutt county, which were about to expire, and that such persons were desirous of purchasing such lands from the government, but did not have the money .with which to pay for the same; that, if Nichols would advance money with which to pay the, government for these lands, each of such filers, for whom Stevens was represented to be acting, would give Nichols an undivided one-balf interest in each of such tracts of land for which Nichols furnished the money to pay the government. Nichols had several interviews with Stevens, Orr, Wilder, and Kirk, during which this matter was discussed, and during which certain maps were exhibited to Nichols, showing the location of the lands under consideration, which were indicated upon one of such maps as ‘Stevens & Company’ lands, which group embraces all of the lands here under consideration. Nichols thereupon agreed to furnish the money with which to pay for part of these entries, and did furnish [33]*33for that purpose more than $20,000 during March and April, 1903. Furthermore, Nichols interested his cousin, one Henry M. Hubbard, of Chicago, 111., who advanced for the same purpose $11,200.

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

Related

United States v. Trinidad Coal & Coking Co.
137 U.S. 160 (Supreme Court, 1890)
United States v. Keitel
211 U.S. 370 (Supreme Court, 1908)
United States v. Forrester
211 U.S. 399 (Supreme Court, 1908)
United States v. Munday
222 U.S. 175 (Supreme Court, 1911)
United States v. Colorado Anthracite Co.
225 U.S. 219 (Supreme Court, 1912)
Wright-Blodgett Co. v. United States
236 U.S. 397 (Supreme Court, 1915)
Wilson Coal Co. v. United States
188 F. 545 (Ninth Circuit, 1911)
United States v. Krueger
228 F. 97 (Eighth Circuit, 1915)
Northern Colorado Coal Co. v. United States
234 F. 34 (Eighth Circuit, 1916)
Hill v. United States
234 F. 39 (Eighth Circuit, 1916)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
248 F. 30, 1917 U.S. App. LEXIS 1276, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-kirk-ca8-1917.