Willis W. Ritter v. Rogers C. B. Morton, Secretary of the Department of the Interior

513 F.2d 942
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedApril 4, 1975
Docket73-1770
StatusPublished
Cited by28 cases

This text of 513 F.2d 942 (Willis W. Ritter v. Rogers C. B. Morton, Secretary of the Department of the Interior) 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
Willis W. Ritter v. Rogers C. B. Morton, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, 513 F.2d 942 (9th Cir. 1975).

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

This case involves the ownership of three islands located in the Snake River in Idaho. The action was brought by appellee, and jurisdiction was claimed under 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706 (Administrative Procedure Act), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1361 (suit compelling officer to perform duty) and 2201, 2202 (declaratory judgment). After a full presentation of the evidence, the district court found for appellee. We reverse the judgment of the lower court and affirm the decision of the Secretary.

FACTS

Appellee is the owner of “Thousand Springs Farm,” which extends for three miles along the east bank of the Snake River in Gooding County, Idaho. His ownership of the land results from a series of conveyances dating from the original government patents. The islands in dispute are in Section 17 of Township 8 South, Range 14 East of the Boise Meridian, and are located in the river immediately south and west of the principal area of appellee’s farm.

The United States caused a survey of the township to be made in August and *944 September of 1893. An official plat of the township, based on the surveyor’s field notes, was drawn and approved by the Surveyor General for Idaho in May, 1895. The relevant portion of this plat is shown in Diagram A. In February, 1896, a patent was issued under the Homestead Act to Polina Lewis, a predecessor in interest of appellee. The patent covered “ . . . the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter and the West Half of the Southeast Quarter, and Lots Five and Eight in Section Seventeen, . . . containing 170.40 acres.” According to the official plat, fractional Lots 5 and 8 contained 16.80 and 33.60 acres respectively, with 120 acres in the remainder of the patented area. The lots bordered on the river.

The surveyor’s field notes make no mention of the disputed islands which, in fact, were located alongside Lots 5 and 8. The surveyor’s description of the river’s meander line on the east bank specifically mentions crossing Sand Creek twice, thus apparently remaining east of the islands. The plat shows only a significant bulbous widening of the river where the islands in fact were located. This contrasts sharply with the survey and plat of Section 20 to the south, in which an island is described in the field notes and drawn in the plat. Another contrast is evident with Section 8 to the north, wherein the meander line clearly is shown to be on the west side of an island-like piece of land separated from the adjacent basalt cliffs by a stream created by the flow of Thousand Springs.

The Department of the Interior did not conduct a survey of the disputed islands until 1955. They were then designated Lots 9, 10 and 11 and measured 8.99, 1.29 and 0.84 acres respectively. A plat based on the 1955 field notes was filed in 1959, the relevant portion of which is contained in Diagram B. The most recent plat, current to September, 1971, shows Lots 5 and 8 still to be 16.80 and 33.60 acres respectively, as they were in the 1895 plat. The relevant portion of the latest plat is pictured in Diagram C.

In June, 1959, appellee was notified by the Department of the Interior that the previously omitted islands are, by virtue of the new survey, “ . . . public lands of the United States open to entry and selection under the public land laws. . ” Other material facts follow.

PROCEEDINGS BELOW

When the Department later made known its intention to transfer title in the islands to the State of Idaho, appel-lee commenced an administrative action under the Color of Title Act, 43 U.S.C. § 1068, which action was ultimately denied by the appellant Secretary of the Interior. This action in the district court followed. Appellee asked that the administrative action be reversed or that, alternatively, the appellant officers of the United States be restrained from interfering with his title, use, and possession of the claimed islands.

The district court made, inter alia, the following findings of fact:

—“The field notes and survey plat described the western boundary of Lots 5 and 8, Section 17, as the meander line of the Snake River.”

—The disputed islands, according to expert testimony, “ . . . constitute a flood plain of the Snake River which plain was built during flood stages by the deposit of layer upon layer of silt and very fine sand which are the common sediments that the Snake River has carried.”

—“[T]he subject lands once formed a peninsula which was connected with the mainland, now lots 5 and 8. The subsequent separation of the subject lands from Lots 5 and 8 was due to the flow of Sand Springs Creek and not the action of the Snake River.”

—“The channel of the Snake River in 1893 was to the west of the subject lands and the high and low marks of the Snake River are to the west of the subject lands. The meander line of the Snake River in 1893, at the time of the survey of Lots 5 and 8 was on the west boundary of the subject islands.” [Emphasis supplied.]

*945 —“There was no gross error or fraud in connection with the survey of 1893.”

Among its conclusions of law, the district court held that the action was in the nature of one “ . . .to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s use and possession of lands patented and lawfully conveyed to him.” Accordingly, it concluded that the action was not barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity and that it had jurisdiction. It found appellee to be the owner of the islands because they “ . are east of the water course of the Snake River which constitutes the actual boundary of the land conveyed by the patent. . . . ” In finding for appel-lee and enjoining appellants from interference with the appellee’s title to the islands, the court found it unnecessary to determine the administrative appeal under the Color of Title Act.

ISSUES ON APPEAL

The questions raised by the parties and presently before this court are:

1. Did the district court err in concluding that this action is not barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity?

2. Is federal or Idaho law controlling on the boundary determination issue?

3. Did the district court apply the proper rules of law in determining the placement of the boundary and the ownership of the islands?

4. Was the district court clearly erroneous in its factual findings that the disputed islands were east of the Snake River’s boundary and meander line?

THE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY ISSUE

Though under attack in other areas of the law, the doctrine of sovereign immunity is still very much alive in suits involving land title disputes. An uncontested suit against a federal officer which is, in substance, a suit against the United States has traditionally been jurisdictionally barred by sovereign immunity. Larson v.

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

Related

United States v. Joseph Duncan, III
599 F. App'x 679 (Ninth Circuit, 2015)
Our Lady of the Rockies, Inc. v. Peterson
2008 MT 110 (Montana Supreme Court, 2008)
Mendoza v. Educational Credit Management Corp.
182 F. App'x 661 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Riceland Petroleum Co. v. North American Land Co.
869 So. 2d 894 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2004)
Koch v. United States
47 F.3d 1015 (Tenth Circuit, 1995)
Koch v. United States
824 F. Supp. 996 (D. Colorado, 1993)
State v. Alaska Land Title Ass'n
667 P.2d 714 (Alaska Supreme Court, 1983)
Lee S. Donaldson v. United States
653 F.2d 414 (Ninth Circuit, 1981)
Thomas Robert Simpson v. United States
652 F.2d 831 (Ninth Circuit, 1981)
Contreras v. City of Los Angeles
656 F.2d 1267 (Ninth Circuit, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
513 F.2d 942, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willis-w-ritter-v-rogers-c-b-morton-secretary-of-the-department-of-the-ca9-1975.