Garibaldi v. Grillo

California Court of Appeal Nov 23, 1911 No. Civ. No. 863.Published

Before: Chipman

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish a valid mining claim because they did not provide sufficient evidence of a discovery of gold as required by United States mining laws. A valid discovery requires more than conjecture or hearsay; it must be of such character that a person of ordinary prudence would be justified in the further expenditure of labor and means.

Issues

Whether a stipulation that land is unpatented placer mineral land relieves a claimant of the burden of proving a discovery of gold.
Whether the plaintiffs' evidence of prospecting and geological conditions constituted a sufficient discovery of mineral to support a valid mining claim.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The parties were competent to stipulate as to their contending and conflicting rights, but they could not by stipulation relieve themselves from proving at the trial that they had made a discovery of gold”

“Where minerals have been found, and the evidence is of such a character that a person of ordinary prudence would be justified in the further expenditure of his labor and means, with a reasonable prospect of success, in developing a valuable mine”

Synopsis

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Amador County, and from an order denying a new trial. Fred V. Wood, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

CHIPMAN, P. J.

Action to quiet title to a placer mining claim.

The court made findings that neither plaintiffs nor defendants were “at the commencement of -the action or at any other time the owners of” the land severally claimed by them or any part thereof. Plaintiffs appeal from the judgment and from the order denying their motion for a new trial. Defendants do not appeal, and are in no position to attack the findings and conclusions of law respecting the land claimed by them.

(Trevaskis

Peard,

111 Cal. 599, [44 Pac. 246].)

Appellants contend that they made sufficient proof of location and of discovery of gold. There was evidence that they made a location of the ground about August 22, 1908, by staking the corners, posting notice and having the land surveyed. There was no evidence that they marked the boundaries of the claim so as to be readily traced. The notice of location was duly recorded August 24, 1908. The action was commenced February 6, 1909.

The proof of work done or discovery of gold on the claim by plaintiffs is slight and is as follows: Plaintiff Garibaldi testified: “Q. You were present in assisting and prospecting the claim and taking samples out? A. Yes, sir. Q. Just describe what you did. A. Just took two pans of dirt and prospected them one at each place, two places. Q. That was before you located there? A. Yes, sir. Q. You found gold? A. [The witness nodded his head.] Q. Have you ever prospected the ground before? A. No, sir. Q. You know that it had gold from other parties telling you, in paying quantities? A. Yes, sir.”

On cross-examination he testified: “I did not do any work on this claimt I did not see any old corners with sticks. I did not know Skinner. I knew Christensen. I did not know

[542]

that any man was in possession of this claim. There is no gravel on the surface. I saw lava on the ground; it is hard lava. I do not know how deep it is. I do not know if it is fifteen feet deep. I do not know if it is fifty feet deep in some places. There was gravel on the rims. I mean by rims, the place between the bedrock and the surface. There is water on the dirt in the winter.”

Garibaldi v. Grillo

AI Brief

Synopsis

CHIPMAN, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief