United States v. Camfield
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Colorado
Proceeding against Daniel A. Camfield and William Drury for unlawfully inclosing public lands. Heard on exceptions to the answer. All the odd-numbered sections in townships 7 and 8 N., range 63 W. of the sixth principal meridian, were purchased by the defendants from the Union Pacific Railway Company. The lands were incapable of successful cultivation without irrigation, as also were the adjoining lands, belonging! to the United States.
Read the full summary
Proceeding against Daniel A. Camfield and William Drury for unlawfully inclosing public lands. Heard on exceptions to the answer. All the odd-numbered sections in townships 7 and 8 N., range 63 W. of the sixth principal meridian, were purchased by the defendants from the Union Pacific Railway Company. The lands were incapable of successful cultivation without irrigation, as also were the adjoining lands, belonging! to the United States. The defendants have undertaken to build reservoirs, to be supplied from the neighboring stream, for the irrigation of their own lands and the adjacent…
1Opinion of the Court
1IALLETT, District Judge.
The act of congress of February 25, 1885, (23 Stat. 321,) declares that any inclosure of public lands made without claim or color of title shall be unlawful, and confers jurisdiction on federal courts to abate and remove, in a summary way, all fences erected contrary to the provisions of the act. In this bill tbe government seeks to enforce the act with respect to certain fences erected by respondents, inclosing government lands in townships 7 and 8 Á., of range 63 ~W. of the sixth principal meridian, covering an area of 20,000 acres. It is charged in the hill that…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- States v. Douglas-Willan Sartoris Co.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1889
- United States v. Brighton Ranche Co.United States Circuit Court · 1885
- United States v. Brighton Ranch Co.United States Circuit Court · 1885
- United States v. Cleveland & Colo. Cattle Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Colorado · 1888
- United States v. BrandesteinDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1887
3Cited by1 opinion
- Hecht v. HarrisonWyoming Supreme Court · 1895