16 U.S.C. § 486

Exchange of lands in national forests; reservations of timber, minerals, or easements

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 16 CasesGoogle Scholar

Either party to an exchange may make reservations of timber, minerals, or easements, the values of which shall be duly considered in determining the values of the exchanged lands. Where reservations are made in lands conveyed to the United States the right to enjoy them shall be subject to such reasonable conditions respecting ingress and egress and the use of the surface of the land as may be deemed necessary by the Secretary of Agriculture; where mineral reservations are made in lands conveyed by the United States it shall be so stipulated in the patents, and that any person who acquires the right to mine and remove the reserved deposits may enter and occupy so much of the surface as may be required for all purposes incident to the mining and removal of the minerals therefrom, and may mine and remove such minerals upon payment to the owner of the surface for damages caused to the land and improvements thereon. All property, rights, easements, and benefits authorized by this section to be retained by or reserved to owners of lands conveyed to the United States shall be subject to the tax laws of the States where such lands are located.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1938–1986 · leading case: Red Canyon Sheep Co. v. Ickes, 98 F.2d 308 (D.C. Cir. 1938).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Red Canyon Sheep Co. v. Ickes, 98 F.2d 308 (D.C. Cir. 1938). · cites it 3× “422 , 16 U.S.C.A. § 486 note, had removed the obstacles to the exchange theretofore thought to exist, and, by an or■der of March 17, 1936, aísmissed a protest which the appellants had filed against the • exchange.”

Poverty Flats Land & Cattle Co., a New Mexico Corp. v. United States, 788 F.2d 676 (10th Cir. 1986). “See also the General Exchange Act of 1922, 16 U.S.C. § 486 . Plaintiff And Predecessors Did Not Know Of Government’s Claim As mentioned, the trial court determined that neither plaintiff-appellant nor its predecessors in interest knew or should have known of the claim of the…”

Nat'l Forest Pres. Grp. v. Butz, 485 F.2d 408 (9th Cir. 1973). “1090 , codified as 16 U.S.C. § 486 . The General Exchange Act was an innovation; prior to that Act exchanges had been authorized on an individual bassis by special bills which often contained their own restrictions on the authority of the Secretary or the private exchanger.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.