Consolidated Mut. Oil Co. v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Southern Division of the Southern District of California; Maurice T. Dooling, Judge. Two suits in equity by the United States against the Consolidated Mutual Oil Company and J. M. McDeod. Decrees for complainant, and defendants appeal.
1DissentGilbert, Circuit Judge
In the first place, I think it is error to hold that the land in question was occupied under a location or claim “existing and valid” within the language of the exception found in the withdrawal order of September 27, 1909. The reasoning in United States v. McCutchen (D. C.) 234 Fed. 709, and United States v. Midway Northern Oil Co. (D. C.) 232 Fed. 619, is, I think, convincing.
In the second place, I think it extremely doubtful whether an association claim, such as that which is involved in the present case, is *531protected by the provisions of the Pickett Act of June 25, 1910, any further than…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Shiver v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Bosworth v. St. Louis Terminal Railroad Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1899
- United States v. Midway Northern Oil Co.District Court, S.D. California · 1916
- Hutchinson v. American Palace-Car Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine · 1900
- United States v. Grass Creek Oil & Gas Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1916
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.