Burns v. Schoenfeld

California Court of Appeal Jun 3, 1905 No. No. 23.Published

Before: Chipman

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an employee who discovers and takes possession of gold while performing labor for an employer on public land is entitled to the gold, provided the employer's purpose for the excavation was not to mine or extract minerals.

Issues

Whether the evidence supports the trial court's finding that the defendants' purpose in excavating was not to mine or extract gold.
Whether an employee is entitled to keep gold discovered during the course of employment when the employer's work objective is not mineral extraction.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“mere occupancy of a thing, as against all except the state and the owner, is a sufficient title”

“where things are found that have no owner they belong, as in a state of nature, to the first occupant or fortunate finder.”

“We think that there is evidence sufficient to support the findings.”

Synopsis

Appeal from New Trial Order—Review—Findings.—Upon appeal from an order denying a new trial only, the sufficiency of the findings to support the judgment cannot be considered, and the only inquiry as to the findings is whether they are supported by the evidence.

Mining—Excavation by Servant for Mill-Site—Extraction of Gold —Title of Servant—Recovery of Value.—Where it appears that a servant employed by defendants solely to excavate land, appropriated as non-mineral, for a mill-site, and that in the course of his excavation for the mill-site he discovered .gold, which was mined by Mm and reduced to Ms possession as Ms own, he is entitled thereto as the first taker on public lands, and may recover the value thereof from the defendants, who forcibly took possession thereof from Mm.

Id.—Finding of Title Supported by Evidence—Conflict—Concealed Intention of Defendants.-—A finding in favor of the plaintiff’s title to the gold mined is sufficiently supported where evidence of the intention of the defendants to avail themselves of any mineral found on the mill-site was concealed from the servants employed to excavate the land solely for a mill-site, and is in conflict with the physical facts and circumstances surrounding the work, and the testimony for defendants upon a former trial wMeh tend to support the finding.

CHIPMAN, P. J.

Action to recover from defendants the value of certain gold and gold-bearing rock of which plaintiff alleges ownership and possession, and that defendants wrongfully and against his will took, carried away, and converted to their own use. The cause was tried by the court without a jury, and plaintiff had judgment for six hundred dollars, with interest from February 23, 1899, and costs.

Defendants moved for a new trial, which was denied, and they appeal from the order. There is no appeal from the judgment, and we therefore cannot consider the sufficiency of the findings to support the judgment, and can only inquire whether the findings are supported by the evidence.

(Rauer

Fay,

128 Cal. 523, [61 Pac. 90.])

It appears from the findings: That defendants are owners of a mine of which one Bleck (originally made a defendant) was general

manager;

that near said property, and on public lands of the United States, defendants selected a site for a quartz-mill and were engaged in grading said site for the purpose of erecting a quartz-mill thereon, and on February 23, 1899, employed plaintiff as a laborer to do grading for

[123]

them for the purpose of erecting said quartz-mill, which said grading was being done on the public land of the United States, on which defendants had made no location with a view of acquiring title under the laws of the United States: “That on said day plaintiff discovered, near the northwest corner of the excavation made in the hill, and within the outer limits of said excavation, a pocket of gold of the value of $600.00 and dug the same out and took possession thereof with the intent of appropriating it to himself; that one Clark [originally one of defendants] took said gold from plaintiff’s possession, without his consent and against his will, and delivered it to said Bleck, who delivered it to - defendants, who appropriated it to their own use; that plaintiff was never employed or instructed by defendants or any of them to do mining or prospecting for gold, and that his sole employment by defendants on said 23d day of February and the work he was then engaged in was that of a laborer to do grading for the rmrpose of erecting a quartz-mill on the public lands as above stated”; and that defendants’ occupation of said grade was for the purpose of erecting a quartz-mill, and not otherwise, and the object of the excavation was to construct a quartz-mill, and for no other object or purpose; that at the times mentioned said Clark was superintending said grading for said purposes, and said Bleck was general manager of defendants’ business, and neither said Clark nor said Block has any interest in said gold so converted.

Burns v. Schoenfeld

AI Brief

Synopsis

CHIPMAN, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief