Hicks v. Bell

California Supreme Court Jul 15, 1853Published

Before: Heydenfeldt

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the State, by virtue of its sovereignty, owns all gold and silver mines within its borders, and therefore has the authority to regulate mining claims and authorize the use of such lands.

Issues

Whether the District Court has jurisdiction over mining claims where the amount in controversy exceeds two hundred dollars.
Whether the State has the authority to regulate mining claims on public lands of the United States.
To whom do the mines of gold and silver belong within the State?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The jurisdiction of the District Court is conferred and defined by the Constitution, and no statute can deprive it of its powers.”

“The mines of gold and silver on the public lands are as much the property of this State, by virtue of her sovereignty, as are similar mines in the lands of private citizens.”

“She has, therefore, solely the right to authorize them to be worked; to pass laws for their regulation; to license miners; and to affix such terms and conditions as she may deem proper, to the freedom of their use.”

Synopsis

Actual possession of a portion of a mining claim, according to the custom of miners, in a given locality on the Tuba River, extends by construction to the limits of the claim, held in accordance with such customs. '

The jurisdiction of the District Court is confirmed and defined by the constitution, and no statute can deprive it of its powers.

Although the jurisdiction of mining claims is given to Justices of the Peace, that of the District Court remains unaffected, if the amount in controversy exceeds @200.

The United States, as owner of land within the limits of a State, only occupies the position of any private proprietor, with the exception of exemption from State taxation.

The mines of gold and silver in the public lands are as much the property of the State, by virtue of her sovereignty, as are similar mines in the hands of private proprietors.

The State, therefore, has the sole right to authorize them to be worlted, to pass laws for their regulation, to license miners, and to affix such terms and conditions as she may deem proper to the freedom of their use.

Heydenfeldt, Justice, delivered the opinion of the court. Wells, Justice, concurred.

The objection that the record discloses that there was no actual possession, is not good, because it appears there was actual possession of a portion adjacent to the premises in dispute, and, as I understand it, constructive possession of the latter was claimed by the rules and customs of miners on that part of the river. Nor can it be determined that the jury were not properly informed as to what were these rules. The bill of exceptions does not pretend to set out all that occurred on the trial, but only such incidents as were subjects of dispute and exception.

The jurisdiction of the District Court is conferred and defined by the Constitution, and no statute can deprive it of its powers. Although the jurisdiction of mining claims is given to the Justices of the Peace, that of the District Court remains unaffected, if the amount in controversy exceeds two hundred dollars.

The main reliance in this case of the appellants is, that the land in question is the public land of the United States, and therefore the statutes of this State, which recognize the possessions of miners, which provide for their protection, and require mining claims to be decided according to the rules and regulations of bodies of miners, at each particular mining locality, are mere police regulations, and are invalid to confer any right, such as that of possession, or to enable the recovery thereof.

This position involves the decision of the question, to whom do the mines of gold and silver belong ? To arrive at a satisfactory [225]solution, it is only necessary to examine a few of the leading authorities.

According to the common law of England, mines of silver and gold are termed royal mines, and are the exclusive property of the Crown.

Blackstone says, vol. 1, 'p. 294: “ A twelfth branch of the royal revenue, the right to mines, has its original from the king’s prerogative of coinage, in order to supply him with materials, and therefore those mines which are properly royal, and to which the king is entitled; when found, are only those of silver and gold. By the old common law, if gold or silver be found in mines of base metal, according to the opinion of some, the whole was a royal mine, and belonged to the king.” And he cites 2 Just. 577.-

Hicks v. Bell

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief