Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/102030/united-states-vs-coleman
Timestamp: 2018-02-21 19:31:24
Document Index: 42541019

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 611', '§ 22', '§ 22', '§ 611', '§ 22', '§ 161', '§ 22', '§ 611', '§ 22', '§ 611', '§ 22', '§ 1']

United States Vs Coleman - Citation 102030 - Court Judgment | LegalCrystal
United States Vs. Coleman - Court Judgment
LegalCrystal Citation legalcrystal.com/102030
Case Number 390 U.S. 599
.....a "common variety of stone" which, under 30 u.s.c. § 611, could not qualify for a claim under the mining laws. when coleman remained on the land, the government brought this ejectment action against coleman and his lessee, and they counterclaimed for issuance of a patent. the district court rendered summary judgment for the government. the court of appeals reversed. held: 1. the determination of the secretary of the interior that the quartzite did not qualify as a valuable mineral deposit because it could not be marketed at a profit must be upheld as a reasonable interpretation of 30 u.s.c. § 22. pp. 390 u. s. 601 -603. 2. the secretary correctly ruled that, "[i]n view of the immense quantities of identical stone found in the area outside the claims, the stone.....
United States v. Coleman - 390 U.S. 599 (1968)
U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Coleman, 390 U.S. 599 (1968)
1. The determination of the Secretary of the Interior that the quartzite did not qualify as a valuable mineral deposit because it could not be marketed at a profit must be upheld as a reasonable interpretation of 30 U.S.C. § 22. Pp. 390 U. S. 601 -603.
2. The Secretary correctly ruled that, "[i]n view of the immense quantities of identical stone found in the area outside the claims, the stone must be considered a common variety,'" and thus, under 30 U.S.C. § 611, is excluded from the mining laws. Pp. 390 U. S. 603 -605.
In 1956, respondent Coleman applied to the Department of the Interior for a patent to certain public lands based on his entry onto and exploration of these lands and his discovery there of a variety of stone called quartzite, one of the most common of all solid materials. It was, and still is, respondent Coleman's contention that the quartzite deposits qualify as "valuable mineral deposits" under 30 U.S.C. § 22, [ Footnote 1 ] and make the land "chiefly valuable for building stone" under 30 U.S.C. § 161. [ Footnote 2 ] The Secretary of the Interior held that, to qualify as "valuable mineral deposits" under 30 U.S.C. § 22, it must be shown that the mineral can be "extracted, removed and marketed at a profit" -- the so-called "marketability test." Based on the largely undisputed evidence in the record, the Secretary concluded that the
Page 390 U. S. 601
deposits claimed by respondent Coleman did not meet that criterion. As to the alternative "chiefly valuable for building stone" claim, the Secretary held that respondent Coleman's quartzite deposits were a "common variet[y]" of stone within the meaning of 30 U.S.C. § 611, [ Footnote 3 ] and thus they could not serve as the basis for a valid mining claim under the mining laws. The Secretary denied the patent application, but respondent Coleman remained on the land, forcing the Government to bring this present action in ejectment in the District Court against respondent Coleman and his lessee, respondent McClennan. The respondents filed a counterclaim seeking to have the District Court direct the Secretary to issue a patent to them. The District Court, agreeing with the Secretary, rendered summary judgment for the Government. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding specifically that the test of profitable marketability was not a proper standard for determining whether a discovery of "valuable mineral deposits" under 30 U.S.C. § 22 had been made, and that building stone could not be deemed a "common variet[y]" of stone under 30 U.S.C. § 611. We granted the Government's petition for certiorari because of the importance of the decision to the utilization of the public lands. 389 U.S. 970.
We cannot agree with the Court of Appeals, and believe that the rulings of the Secretary of the Interior
were proper. The Secretary's determination that the quartzite deposits did not qualify as valuable mineral deposits because the stone could not be marketed at a profit does no violence to the statute. Indeed, the marketability test is an admirable effort to identify with greater precision and objectivity the factors relevant to a determination that a mineral deposit is "valuable." It is a logical complement to the "prudent man test" which the Secretary has been using to interpret the mining laws since 1894. Under this "prudent man test," in order to qualify as "valuable mineral deposits," the discovered deposits must be of such a character that
Castle v. Womble, 19 L.D. 455, 457 (1894). This Court has approved the prudent man formulation and interpretation on numerous occasions. See, for example, Chrisman v. Miller, 197 U. S. 313 , 197 U. S. 322 ; Cameron v. United States, 252 U. S. 450 , 252 U. S. 459 ; Best v. Humboldt Placer Mining Co., 371 U. S. 334 , 371 U. S. 335 -336. Under the mining laws, Congress has made public lands available to people for the purpose of mining valuable mineral deposits, and not for other purposes. [ Footnote 4 ] The obvious intent was to reward and encourage the discovery of minerals that are valuable in an economic sense. Minerals which no prudent man will extract because there is no demand for them at a price higher than the cost of extraction and transportation are hardly economically valuable. Thus, profitability is an important consideration in applying the prudent man test, and the
Page 390 U. S. 603
"[i]n view of the immense quantities
Page 390 U. S. 604
of identical stone found in the area outside the claims, the stone must be considered a 'common variety,'"
101 Cong.Rec. 8743. (Emphasis added.)
Page 390 U. S. 605
The cornerstone of federal legislation dealing with mineral lands is the Act of May 10, 1872, 17 Stat. 91, 30 U.S.C. § 22, which provides in § 1 that citizens may enter and explore the public domain, and, if they find "valuable mineral deposits," may obtain title to the land on which such deposits are located by application to the Department of the Interior. The Secretary of the Interior is "charged with seeing . . . that valid claims . . . [are] recognized, invalid ones eliminated, and the rights of the public preserved." Cameron v. United States, 252 U. S. 450 , 252 U. S. 460 .