Schaub v. United States, 207 F.2d 325 (9th Cir. 1953)
207 F.2d 325
US-DOC-21092610
locator
Case details
Bluebook Citation
Schaub v. United States, 207 F.2d 325 (9th Cir. 1953)
Full caption
SCHAUB v. UNITED STATES.
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
Sep. 24, 1953
Disposition
Per Curiam Affirmed
No. 13685.
Sept. 24, 1953.
Stump & Bailey, Wilfred C. Stump, Ketchikan, Alaska, Ferguson & Burdell, Donald McL. Davidson, Seattle, Wash., for appellant.
J. Edward Williams, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., James M. Mclnerney, Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D. C., P. J. Gilmore, Jr., U. S. Atty., Juneau, Alaska, Roger P. Marquis, Elizabeth Dudley, Attorneys, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Before HEALY, BONE and POPE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This action was brought by the United States to quiet its title to a parcel of land, containing 37.5 acres, near Ketchi-kan, Alaska. This tract was situated in, and a part of Tongass National Forest when, on June 21, 1951, the appellant, defendant below, undertook to locate a mining claim thereon.1 The area had p. 326previously been used by various road builders, operating under contracts with the Bureau of Public Roads, as a source •of road building material. On February .9, 1951, and prior to defendant’s attempted mineral location, the Regional Forester, at the request of the Bureau, issued a document entitled “Correction Memorandum No. 11”, which recited that the area here in question “is hereby reserved for the use of the Bureau of Public Roads as a source of road building material.”
1
The location was based upon a claimed discovery of a valuable mineral deposit consisting of sand and gravel. Whether such a deposit was open to location under the general mining laws, 30 U.S.C.A. § 21 et seq., was not in question here.
p. 326For a reference to a later decision on that question by the same district judge, Anchorage Sand & Gravel Co. v. Schubert, D.C., 114 F.Supp. 436.
The trial court held that this was a valid “special use permit” authorized by 48 U.S.C.A. § 341 and 23 U.S.C.A. § 18, and regulations issued pursuant thereto, and that it had the effect of withdrawing the area in dispute from mineral location at the time the defendant-appellant attempted to locate it. As we agree with this holding of the district court, the judgment is affirmed.