Kramer v. Superior Court

THOMPSON, J. —

By means of a writ of prohibition the petitioner seeks to prevent the trial court of Calaveras County from entertaining or determining a motion to set aside a judgment entered by direction of the appellate court and a motion for new trial therefrom, filed by the appellants against whom a suit to quiet title to certain mining claims had been determined. This petition also seeks to prohibit, the trial court from interfering with the right to restitution and possession of the mining claim which was adjudged to belong to the respondent in that case.

It appears that Chas. W. Kramer brought suit against Mr. and Mrs. Sanguinetti to quiet title to the Buckhorn Lode Mining Claim in Calaveras County. The defendants answered the complaint, claiming title to that property. In a cross-complaint the defendants also asserted title to their Chaparral Placer Mining Claim, which to some extent overlapped the Buckhorn claim. One of the issues in that suit was the location of the point of discovery of quartz on the Buckhorn claim. After trial by the court sitting without a jury, findings were adopted to the effect that all of the allegations of plaintiff’s complaint were true; that “plaintiff is the owner and entitled to the possession of the Buckhorn Lode Mining Claim described in his complaint” and that the defendants had no right, title or interest therein. Judgment was rendered accordingly in favor of the plaintiff. The trial court did, however, fail to adopt specific findings with respect to the affirmative allegations of the defendants’ cross-complaint with respect to their Chaparral Placer Mining Claim. On appeal to this court the findings and judgment of the trial court were approved in every respect.

(Kramer

v.

Sanguinetti,

33 Cal. App. (2d) 303 [91 Pac. (2d) 604].) On the

[241]

theory that the appellants were entitled to findings and a judgment on their cross-complaint quieting title in them to such portion of their Chaparral claim as did not overlap the Buekhorn claim, on the authority of article YI, section 4% of the California Constitution, section 956a of the Code of Civil Procedure and

Tupman

v.