Weekly Arizona journal-miner. [volume] (Prescott, Ariz.) 1903-1908, 1908-02-12
District Attorney Of
Maricopa County
Puzzled
attorney General Clark
Interprets The
Statute
From Saturdays Daily

IETon DhllyD
IN answer to a request for an opinion
,peerniug the Interpretation of the
,,hool land law, received from District
Attorney Ballard, of Maricopa county,
Attorney General Clark yesterday
rendered the following opinion:
Prescott, Feb. eth, 1908.
Mr. G. T. Billiard, District Attorney,
Phoenix, Arizona.
Dear Sir:
| have yours of Feb. ith relating TO
,he controversy regarding the leasing
Of certain school lands in Maricopa
county.
You state that certain portion Of
q school section in said county was,
tror 10 the enactment Of Title 45 of
ihe Revised statutes of 1901, occupied
By one Titus, who expended some
money in improving the same; that
after The passage Of said act, Titus
conveyed his improvements to one
Sampson who was and is a nonresident
Of Arizona; that Sampson has inter.
ni,tcniy cultivated said land through
q tenant named Frazer, but has never
himself been a citizen of Arizona; that
on October Sth, 1907, q. II. Rothroek
made application to lease said land;
that the board of supervisors immedi
aiely accepted said application, but
have not yet executed the lease; that
subsequent to the application of Roth
rock, sampson conveyed to his tenant
Fraser all of said improvements and
Fraser, ON the 9Th day of December,
1907, also applied to the board of sup.
eryisors for lease Of said land, claim
ing 20 be- the occupant thereof. You
submit two questions which you con
sdcr 10 be- the leading ones in the
case, rs follows:
J. as between Frazer and Roth.
rock, which is entitled to the lease I"
>. eff Rothrock is entitled to the
lease, as against Frazer, was Sampson,
the assignOr of Frazer, such an occu-
pant Of the land at the time of the ap.
FIication of Rothrock TO lease the land,
a. would entitlc either Sampson, or his
assignee, To receive payment for the
improycmentsP'
advise you first, that under the pro-
visions Of paragraph 4044, the super.
Vlsors are empowered TO lease school
lands only to citizens of this Territory
or those who nave declared their inten-
Ton to become such. Assuming, there
lore, that Sampson was not citizen
Of the Territory, and has not declared
DIS intention to become such, he was
not entitled to lease the land under
any circumstances and the board would
nave no power to lease IL TO him. This
beng the ease, il IL obvious that Frazer
acquired no rights merely as n sub
tenant or agent Of Sampson, but II he
was q resident of the Territory during
AIS occupancy Of said land he was, non'
The less, an occupant because he wal
also acting as the agent of Sampson
This brings MS to consideration OF
paragraph 4046, in which IL il provided
mat anyone wishing to lease school o.
university lands shall make application
10 TIE board of supervisors and shal
STATE, among other things, whether tn
and is occupied and, if 80, by whom
'1ai' It said lands are occupied, Ia
supervisors shall notify the occupant o
sad lands that he must, in order TO re
"'h possession thereof, pay the leas
ng value and take n lease OF SAL
"nd'' or that the supervisors will pre-
't'd TO appoint appraisers to apprais
"id improvements.
II becomes very plain, therefore
'hal whore school lands are occupied
h' board Of supervisors acquires n
jurisdiction to lease the lands a
against the occupant, unless prope
APPLICATION has been filed, setting fort
"a' said lands are occupied, and b
"hom and further, that the supervi
or would have no jurisdiction eve
'hen to lease said lands az against IN
occupant, unless the board had notifie
'' occupant, as provided in paragrap
1915
believe this whole question turf
on whether Rothrock in his applicable