Skip to main content
· 2/25/1924

Swendig v. Washington Water Power Co.

Citations

  • 265 U.S. 322
  • 44 S. Ct. 496
  • 68 L. Ed. 1036
  • 1924 U.S. LEXIS 2610

Syllabus

<p>1. The Act of March 3, 1901, providing for granting rights of way for telephone lines, does not apply to wires strung on the poles of an electric power line and used only in connection with its operation and maintenance. P. 327.</p> <p>2. The Act of February 15, 1901, authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, under general regulations to be fixed by him, to permit the use of rights of way through the public lands, reservations and certain parks, for electric power lines, etc., and declares that such permission may be revoked by the Secretary who gave it or his successor, in his discretion, and shall not be held to confer any right, or easement, or interest in, to, or over any public land, reservation, or park. Held:</p> <p>(a) The right of use continues until the permit has been revoked by the Secretary. P. 329.</p> <p>(b) The Secretary has power to adopt a regulation that final disposition by the United States of any tract traversed by a permitted “ right of way ” shall revoke the permission quoad that tract; and to change the regulation by providing that tracts when so disposed of shall remain subject to a right of use previously permitted until the permission has been specifically revoked under the act. Id.</p> <p>(c) Where lands of an Indian reservation on which an electric transmission line was constructed and in operation under such a permit, were thrown open and entered under the homestead law, at a time when a regulation provided that final disposition of the tracts should revoke the permit pro tanto, and were afterwards conveyed to the entrymen by patents making no reservation of the permit, but not until after the regulations had been amended to continue the permission in such cases until specifically revoked, — the patentees took subject to the permit. P. 330.</p>

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that patents issued \without a reservation did not convey what the law reserved\
  • reserving to the United States all coal and other \valuable minerals\ in lands under the Pittman Underground Water Act
  • indicating that it was reversing the trial court’s judgment
  • indicating that it was reversing the trial court’s judgment
  • indicating that it was reversing the trial court’s judgment
  • indicating that it was reversing the trial court’s judgment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Butler

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.