Case Name: LASSLEY v. BROWNELL
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1912-10-28
Citations: 199 F. 772
Docket Number: No. 1,995
Parties: LASSLEY v. BROWNELL.
Judges: Before GILBERT, ROSS, and MORROW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 199
Pages: 772–772

Head Matter:
LASSLEY v. BROWNELL.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
October 28, 1912.)
No. 1,995.
Mines and Minerals (§ 38*) — Lands in Alaska — Contest Between Homestead Settler and Mineral Locator — Suit to Quiet Title.
In Act May 14, 1898, c. 299, § 10, 30 Stat. 413 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1469), authorizing persons, associations, or corporations occupying public lands in Alaska for purposes of trade, etc., to purchase the same, not exceeding 80 acres, the provision for the bringing of a suit to quiet title by an adverse claimant does not apply to contests arising between homestead settlers and locators of mineral claims concerning the mineral or nonmineral character of the land claimed by both, which is a matter within the jurisdiction of the Land Department; nor is such provision extended by the amendment of March 3, 1903 (32 Stat. 1028, c. 1002 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1911, p. 606]).
[Ed. Note.- — Eor other cases, see Mines and Minerals, Cent. Dig. §§ 871/2-113; Dec. Dig. § 38.*]
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Third Division of the Territory of Alaska; Edward E. Cushman, Judge.
Action at law by H. E. Lassley against Don Carlos Brownell. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.
Affirmed.
S. O. Morford, of Seward, Alaska, and Jas. Alva Watt, of San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff in error.
D. V. Ray, of Seward, Alaska, for defendant in error.
Before GILBERT, ROSS, and MORROW, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
GILBERT, Circuit Judge.
The questions presented in this case are identical with those which were involved in the case of John A. Nelson v. Don Carlos Brownell, 193 Fed. 641, 113 C. C. A. 509, decided at a recent term of this court.
Upon' the considerations and authorities which led to the decision in that case, the iudument of the court below in the present case is affirmed.