Hardeman v. Witbeck, 286 U.S. 444 (1932)
Linked as:
Text
U.S. Supreme Court HARDEMAN v. WITBECK, 286 U.S. 444 (1932)
[Page 286 U.S. 444, 446]
by the applicant and considered as earned when paid, and to be credited in equal parts on the compensation of the register and receiver. Section 31(a ), p. 461.
On November 12, 1923, respondent, complying with the law and regulations, applied for a permit to prospect upon the land and paid the required amount. December 11, petitioner, claiming the preference right given by the act, filed an application for a permit to prospect upon the same tract. The substance of the application was that on November 11 he had erected the monument and posted a notice on the land as required by the statute. But he did not tender or pay the required fee until December 19. In the contest that followed it was finally held in an opinion promulgated by the Secretary that, petitioner having failed to pay the required amount within the time allowed, respondent was entitled to have the permit, 51 L. D. 36.
Petitioner's application was later than respondent's, and he had no ground upon which to claim a permit in the absence of a preference right. In order to secure that right, full compliance with the law and regulations was necessary. The declaration that the fee is for 'receiving and acting' on the application and is 'to be considered as earned when paid' strongly confirms the inference, which would exist without it, that payment is essential to the completion of the application. When the 30 days expired, petitioner's preference right was at an end, and the land was subject to respondent's application for a permit.
As the Secretary rightly held petitioner not entitled to the permit, he has no standing to maintain this suit. Fisher v. Rule, 248 U.S. 314, 318, 39 S. Ct. 122; Anicker v. Gunsburg, 246 U.S. 110, 117, 38 S. Ct. 228.
Decree affirmed. Footnotes
Footnote 1 Act of February 25, 1920, c. 85, 41 Stat. 437, 441 (30 USCA 221).
Sponsored links
