This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D intentionally allowed his cattle to go to the Holy Cross Forest Reserve where there was good water and fine pasturage. D was told to remove the cattle. D refused to do so and even made threats to resist if his cattle were driven off by a forest officer. D claimed that the statute of Colorado provided that a landowner could not recover damages for trespass by animals unless the property was enclosed with a fence of designated size and material. D claims that unless the Government put a fence around the Reserve it had no remedy, either at law or in equity, nor could he be required to prevent his cattle straying upon the Reserve. P sued D. The validity of the rule is attacked on the ground that Congress could not delegate to the Secretary legislative power. D was enjoined from pasturing his cattle on the Reserve because D had refused to comply with the regulations adopted by the Secretary of Agriculture. D claimed that the federal government had no remedy, that he had the right to allow his cattle to graze on open public land, and the reserve was subject to an implied license for grazing purposes because a federal statute that allowed the establishment of land reservations was void. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.