Watterson v. Cruse

California Supreme Court Dec 7, 1918 No. L. A. No. 4530.Published

Before: Sloss

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that when a mining claim is forfeited due to a failure to perform required work, the original locator's right to remove fixtures attached to the land terminates, and such fixtures pass to the subsequent relocator of the claim. Consequently, the plaintiffs, as purchasers of the buildings from the original locator, had no right to remove them after the original mining claim was forfeited and relocated by the defendant.

Issues

Whether the purchaser of buildings from a mining claim locator retains the right to remove those fixtures after the original mining claim has been forfeited and relocated by another party.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the subsequent appropriation of the land carries with it, necessarily, whatever may be affixed to it.”

“The plaintiffs could not, of course, by their purchase from the Mines Company, acquire any better title than their grantor had.”

“There was, therefore, no foundation for the decree giving to the plaintiffs a right of removal of the fixtures”

Synopsis

Appeal—Order Denying a New Trial—Effect of Code Amendment op 1915.—An order denying a new trial made after the amendment of 1915 to section 963 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not an appealable order.

Mining Law — Abandonment or Forfeiture o,p Claim — Termination op Right to Associated Mill Site.—Where the locator of a mill site used in connection with a lode mining claim ceases by reason of abandonment or forfeiture to be the proprietor of the vein or lode, the right to t'he associated mill site is also ended, and the claim together with the connecting mill site is open to relocation.

Id.—Removal op Improvements — Right of Original Locator.—Improvements placed upon mining land by the original locator, if they fall within the class designated as fixtures, become a part' of the realty, and the subsequent appropriation of the land carries with it, necessarily, whatever may be affixed to it, and while prior to the determination of his estate by the perfection of a relocation the prior locator may sever and remove all machinery, buildings, and other improvements which, by the manner of their attachment to the soil, have become a part of the freehold, his right of entry for that purpose ceases when his estate is terminated.

Id.—Status of Locator of Claim.—A locator of a mining claim is-not a mere licensee, but owns an estate, in the claim which possesses all 'the attributes of a title in fee, subject to the paramount fee in the government, although Ms right's are subject to forfeiture for failure to do the required work, followed by a relocation.

SLOSS, J.

On July 2, 1912, Southern Belle Mines Company, a corporation, was the owner and in possession of three mill sites which had been located and used in connection with certain lode mining claims theretofore located by said mining company. On the mill sites there had been erected a quartz-mill, a dwelling-house, and a boarding-house. A barn and office building stood on one of the mining claims'. On said day the corporation sold the quartz-mill and the other buildings to the plaintiffs, with the right to remove the structures in the future. During the year 1913 the Mines Company performed no labor and made no improvements upon said mining claims or mill sites. On January 1, 1914, the defendant and one Sproul (whose interest was subsequently transferred to defendant) made discovery of a mineral-bearing lode, and located thereon a lode mining claim. On March 31, 1914, defendant made a similar discovery and location of a second claim. Everything necessary to constitute a valid mining location was done in each instance. The boundaries of the claims thus located included the ground occupied by the mill and other buildings above mentioned. In May, 1914, the defendant commenced to remove some of the buildings, whereupon plaintiffs brought this action, seeking an injunction to restrain the defendant from so doing, or from preventing the • plaintiffs from removing the structures. The court gave judgment, declaring the plaintiffs to be the owners of the improvements, and allowing them to

[381]

remove the same within two months. The decree also enjoined any interference with such removal during the two months’ period.

The defendant appeals from the judgment. His attempted appeal from the order denying a new trial is nugatory, the order having been made after the amendment of 1915 to section 963 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(Gray

Cotton,

174 Cal. 256, [162 Pac. 1019].)

There is no controversy over the facts, which are here stated as they were found by the court. The only question is whether the ownership and right of possession of the buildings was in the plaintiffs or the defendant. These buildings stood in part upon mining claims and in part upon mill sites. No legal distinction can be drawn in this regard, the case being the same as if it involved improvements upon mining claims alone. Under the mining law mill sites may be located either in connection with the ownership of a vein or lode or independently of the ownership of a mine by the owner of a quartz-mill or reduction works. (U. S. Rev. Stats., sec. 2337, [U. S. Comp. Stats. 1916, sec. 4645; 6 Fed. Stats. Ann., 2d ed., p. 589].) The findings in this case expressly declare that the mill sites in question were located and used in connection with lode mining claims owned by the Mines Company, “and not otherwise.” The company’s right was, therefore, founded upon the first provision of section 2337, the one permitting the location of a mill site as an adjunct to a lode claim. Where the locator of such a site ceases, by reason of abandonment or forfeiture, to be the proprietor of the vein or lode, the right to the associated mill site is also ended. (2 Lindley on Mines, 3d ed., sec. 564.)

Watterson v. Cruse

AI Brief

Synopsis

SLOSS, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief