Dawson County v. Hagen

Full title: DAWSON COUNTY v. HAGEN et al. HAGEN et al. v. YALE et al

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Nov 1, 1948

172 F.2d 387 (9th Cir. 1948)

Opinion

No. 11821.

November 1, 1948.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana; Charles N. Pray, Judge.

Proceeding by the United States of America against Dawson County, Montana, Mary Hagen, E.B. Clark, Minnie R. Evans, Edna Yale, Allen W. Yale, Ruby Yale, Ruth Petterson, Scottish American Mortgage Company, Limited, and others for condemnation of land in Montana, wherein answers and petitions for distribution were filed by Dawson County, Mary Hagen, E.B. Clark, and Minnie R. Evans, From parts of the judgment, Dawson County, Montana, and Mary Hagen, E.B. Clark, and Minnie R. Evans appeal.

Portions of judgment appealed from vacated, and case remanded with directions.

D.C. Warren and E.W. Popham, both of Glendive, Mont., for appellant, Dawson County.

D.J. O'Neil, of Glendive, Mont., and P.F. Leonard, of Miles City, Mont., for Hagen and others.

A. Devitt Vanech, Asst. Atty. Gen., John B. Tansil, U.S. Atty., of Billings, Mont. and John F. Cotter and George S. Swarth, Attys., Department of Justice, both of Washington, D.C., for the United States.

Before MATHEWS, BONE and ORR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

These appeals are from parts of a judgment entered on September 4, 1947, in a proceeding by the United States against Dawson County, Montana, Mary Hagen, E.B. Clark, Minnie R. Evans, Edna Yale, Allen W. Yale, Ruby Yale, Ruth Petterson, Scottish American Mortgage Company, Limited, and others for the condemnation of land in Montana.

A complaint and two amended complaints were filed by the United States. Answers and petitions for distribution were filed by Dawson County, Mary Hagen, E.B. Clark and Minnie R. Evans. Issues of fact and of law were raised. On these issues, hearings were had and evidence was taken.

Before entering judgment, the District Court should have made findings of fact and should have stated conclusions of law. See §§ 9366, 9367 and 9954 of the Montana Revised Codes of 1935; Coffman v. Niece, 110 Mont. 541, 105 P.2d 661; 40 U.S.C.A. § 258; Rule 81(a)(7) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. This was not done.

Therefore those portions of the judgment which are here appealed from are vacated, and the case is remanded to the District Court with directions to make findings of fact and state conclusions of law, as required by §§ 9366, 9367 and 9954 of the Montana Revised Codes of 1935, and thereupon enter such judgment as may be proper.