United States v. Coleman

United States Supreme Court

390 U.S. 599

United States et al.  v.  Coleman et al.

Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

No. 630.  Argued: March 28, 1968. --- Decided: April 22, 1968

Respondent Coleman sought a patent to lands in a national forest predicated on 30 U.S.C. § 22, under which title to land owned by the United States containing "valuable mineral deposits" may be issued to the discoverer of the deposits, and on 30 U.S.C. § 161 allowing claims to lands "chiefly valuable for building stone." Coleman contended that deposits of quartzite (one of the most common of all solid materials) qualified under those provisions. The Secretary of the Interior denied the patent application, holding (1) that to qualify for a patent under § 22 it must be shown that the mineral can be "extracted, removed and marketed at a profit," a test which on the largely undisputed evidence Coleman could not meet, and (2) that the quartzite was 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. 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. 603-605.

363 F. 2d 190, 379 F. 2d 555, reversed and remanded.

Frank J. Barry argued the cause for the United States et al. On the brief were Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Martz, Robert S. Rifkind, Roger P. Marquis and George R. Hyde.

Howard A. Twitty argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were George W. Nilsson, W. Howard Gray, Edward A. McCabe and Monta W. Shirley.

Winston S. Howard and Don H. Sherwood filed a brief for the New Jersey Zinc Co., as amicus curiae.

Notes