Opinion ID: 2356724
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the 1870 railroad grant was valid

Text: ¶ 24 Weiser challenges the district court's grant of partial summary judgment in favor of Union Pacific, which ruling held the 1870 Railroad Grant to be valid. An appellate court reviews a trial court's legal conclusions and ultimate grant or denial of summary judgment for correctness, and views the facts and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Orvis v. Johnson, 2008 UT 2, ¶ 6, 177 P.3d 600 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Weiser argues that the 1870 Railroad Grant is invalid because the deadline specified in the Grant lapsed before Utah Central filed and gained approval of a profile map as required. In contrast, Union Pacific argues that the timely filing of an uncertified map was sufficient to meet the condition of the Grant because the Grant did not require a certified map. We need not address this latter argument because regardless of whether the initially filed map was sufficient, the Act also required that the Secretary approve the map before the three-month deadline, which he did not. Thus, Utah Central failed to meet the required conditions before the specified deadline, as a factual matter. However, the failure had no effect on the validity of the Grant. ¶ 25 The district court correctly held that failure to meet the deadline would not result in an automatic forfeiture. Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has said that lands granted by Congress to aid in the construction of railroads do not revert after condition broken until a forfeiture has been asserted by the United States, United States v. N. Pac. R.R. Co., 177 U.S. 435, 441, 20 S.Ct. 706, 44 L.Ed. 836 (1900), and failure to meet a condition ought not to be treated as a forfeiture, unless the language of the act be so clear and unambiguous as to admit of no other reasonable construction. Bybee v. Or. & Cal. R.R. Co., 139 U.S. 663, 677, 11 S.Ct. 641, 35 L.Ed. 305 (1891). On the other hand, as Weiser points out, the 1870 Act does state that if such acceptance and service shall not be so made, this grant shall be void. Utah Central R.R. Co. Act, Pub.L. No. 41-2, 16 Stat. 395 (1870). However, this clause is part of section 4 of the Act, referring only to Utah Central's acceptance of the terms, conditions, and impositions of the Act, which was to be served on the President. Id. The requirement of filing a map is part of section 1 of the Act, which has no express language as to the consequence of failing to meet that requirement. Consequently, failure to file an approved map by the deadline did not result in automatic forfeiture. ¶ 26 If not resulting in automatic forfeiture, then the failure must be specifically challenged to prove invalidity. Union Pacific argues that only the government has standing to challenge the Act, and as it has not done so, the Act remains valid. The United States Supreme Court has agreed, saying, A third party cannot take upon himself to enforce conditions attached to the grant when the government does not complain of their breach. Van Wyck v. Knevals, 106 U.S. 360, 369, 1 S.Ct. 336, 27 L.Ed. 201 (1882). Also, when faced with a case in which a railroad failed to complete the line within the time limit provided in the granting act, the Court said that no one can take advantage of the non-performance of a condition subsequent annexed to an estate in fee, but the grantor or his heirs.... And the same doctrine obtains where the grant upon condition proceeds from the government; no individual can assail the title it has conveyed on the ground that the grantee has failed to perform the conditions annexed. Bybee, 139 U.S. at 675, 11 S.Ct. 641 (1891) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus we conclude that only the government has standing to challenge its own land grant for a failed condition, and until the government does so, the Grant conveying the right of way is valid. ¶ 27 In addition, Weiser challenges the district court's conclusion that it was bound by stare decisis because the 1870 Railroad Grant has been affirmed as valid by this court and the United States Supreme Court. Though we may affirm the ruling of a lower court on any ground apparent from the record, [4] we take a moment to address this argument in order to provide clarification for future cases. The district court's conclusion was based on several cases presented by Union Pacific. First, in Salt Lake Investment Co. v. Oregon Short Line Railroad Co., we upheld the 1870 Act against an individual claim to title because the individual patent, obtained through the Pre-emption Act of 1841, was itself invalid on independent grounds. 46 Utah 203, 148 P. 439, 443 (1914). However, in that case, neither the parties nor the court addressed the effect of the late map filing. We said only that [t]he grant required acceptance and was accepted in February, 1871, at which time the Utah Central Railroad Company filed with the Secretary of the Interior its articles of incorporation and map showing the route of its road, etc. Id. In the subsequent appeal, the United States Supreme Court said even less about the 1870 Railroad Grant, stating only that [t]he right of way was granted December 15, 1870, and merely affirmed the invalidity of the individual patent. Salt Lake Inv. Co. v. Or. Short Line R.R. Co., 246 U.S. 446, 447-49, 38 S.Ct. 348, 62 L.Ed. 823 (1918). Similarly, in Moon v. Salt Lake County, we upheld the 1870 Act against an individual alleged property owner. 27 Utah 435, 76 P. 222 (1904). There, the individual argued that the subject property was not granted to the Railroad because it was within the city limits. Id. at 224. The court held that the Railroad's grant included land within the limits of Salt Lake City, thus the individual's ownership claim failed. Id. at 226. Again, the court did not specifically examine the validity of the 1870 Railroad Grant, but seemed to simply presume that it was valid. Thus, the issue of the effect of the late map filing has not been adjudicated by this or any other court, and it was error for the district court to reverse its summary judgment based on these cases. Regardless, as mentioned, this court can affirm the decision of the district court based on the independent grounds previously discussed for validity of the 1870 Railroad Grant. ¶ 28 Lastly, Weiser asserts that it was error for the district court to reject his argument that res judicata and collateral estoppel were the correct tools of analysis in reviewing these cases. However, since neither case directly addressed the validity of the 1870 Railroad Grant when considering the map filing, neither is dispositive. Consequently, we need not address the issue.