Wilson

Wilson v. Robinson

Good Law
16 F.2d 431·1926 U.S. App. LEXIS 3874
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 20, 1926No. 4742California663 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Dietrich, J.

The plaintiff, who is also the appellant, made entry of public land under the United States coal land laws. Upon hearings had in the Land Office, the entry was finally canceled by decision of the Secretary of the Interior, and subsequently the defendants, or their predecessors in interest, having made entry under other laws, received patent for the lands. The theory upon which the Secretary proceeded in canceling the entry was that plaintiff and others were acting in combination to procure title to the lands for the benefit of a corporation, in violation of the federal statutes. Contending that the decision was erroneous, and that she was entitled to patent, plaintiff brought this suit to compel the defendants to convey title to her. A motion interposed by the defendants, assailing the bill for want of jurisdiction and upon the further ground that insufficient facts are stated to entitle the plaintiff to relief, was sustained by the court below, and decree of dismissal entered, from which decree this appeal is prosecuted.

The only ground upon which the plaintiff seeks to predicate federal jurisdiction is that the case arises under the laws of the United States. It is familiar…

Dissenting Opinion

Rudkin, J.

The present suit was brought by the appellant, claiming that she was lawfully entitled to a patent for certain public lands, and that through error of law the department wrongfully issued the patent to another. I had always supposed that a controversy of that kind arises under the laws of the United. States and is within- the jurisdiction of a federal court, provided the requisite amount or value is involved. Nor am I yet convinced to the contrary. Bodkin v. Edwards, 255 U. S. 221 , 41 S. Ct. 268 , 65 L. Ed. 595 ; Evans v. Durango Land & Coal Co. (C. C. A.) 80 F. 433 ; Florida C. & P. R. Co. v. Bell (C. C. A.) 87 F. 369 ; Linkswiler v. Schneider (C. C.) 95 F. 203 ; Cates v. Producers’ & Consumers’ Oil Co. (C. C.) 96 F. 7 .

Inasmuch as the majority of the court hold .that we are without jurisdiction, I express, no opinion upon the merits.

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.