McLaughlin v. Kelly

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1863Published

Before: Cope, Crocker, Norton

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. Where a jury verdict for the plaintiffs resolves the sole material issue of ownership of disputed mining land, the plaintiffs are entitled to a perpetual injunction to prevent further trespass, as the pleadings admitted all other material allegations.

Issues

Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a perpetual injunction following a jury verdict in their favor on the issue of land ownership.
Whether the jury's verdict for the plaintiffs effectively resolved the material issue of title despite the jury's award of nominal damages.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the only issue of fact being found for the plaintiffs, they were clearly entitled to that relief.”

“We are clearly of opinion that under the pleadings and verdict they are entitled to the relief by perpetual injunction, as prayed for in the plaintiffs’ complaint.”

“The orders appealed from are therefore reversed and the Court below is directed to enter judgment for a perpetual injunction, in accordance with this opinion.”

Synopsis

Appeal from the Seventeenth Judicial District.

The nature of the action and the character of the issues raised by the pleadings are fully stated in the opinion. The form of the allegation of damage in the complaint, following a description of the entire premises claimed by them, is that defendants “ then and there,” with picks, etc. “ dug, mined out, removed, and converted to their own use, divers large quantities of gold and gold-bearing earth, and gravel of great value, to wit: of the value of $1,000,” to the damage of plaintiffs in that sum. The only reference to the subject of damage in the answer, is a denial that defendants have done any work west of the line as claimed by them.

The statement of the evidence on the trial, as set forth in the record, is as follows: “ Whereupon a jury was regularly impanneled to try the cause, and the parties respectively introduced testimony in support of the issues on them part. It was in evidence, that defendants had worked and mined in that part of the mining ground claimed in the complaint and replication, and lying east of the Carter line, running north fifty-seven degrees and forty-five minutes west (the line claimed by defendants). There was evidence tending to prove that defendants had run an air tunnel through a portion of plaintiffs’ ground west of said Carter line, and that this last mentioned tunnel was run by the consent of the plaintiffs; also, that in working along said line, the defendants had in several places broke over the same and caved down a little dirt from the west side thereof, and at the same time, plaintiffs told defendants they need not be very particular about the line, or about going over the line.”

The instructions were almost entirely directed to questions respecting the title to the triangular piece of ground put in issue by the pleadings. In each of three instructions, given at request of defendants, the jury were told that, upon a certain hypothesis of facts respecting title to the triangle above mentioned, they must find for defendants, “ unless they find that defendants worked on the west side of the Carter (N. 57° 45' W.) line.” On the subject of damage the Court instructed as follows: “ The answer in this case admits that the defendants have extracted gold of the value of $1,000 from the ground claimed by plaintiffs in their complaint, and during the time therein alleged, and if the jury believe from the evidence that plaintiffs at the time of the alleged trespass were entitled to the possession of such ground, they should find a verdict in favor of plaintiffs for $1,000 damages.”

The verdict was as follows: “ We the jurors in the case of Chas. McLaughlin v. Peter Kelly et al., do find a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, with one dollar damages.

L. W. Keyes, Foreman.”

Crocker, J. delivered the opinion of the Court—Cope, C. J. and Norton, J. concurring. The complaint in this case avers that the defendants unlawfully entered upon certain mining ground owned by the plaintiffs and in them possession, and mined out, removed, and converted to their own use large quantities of gold and gold-bearing earth, of the value of SI,000 ; that the defendants have no right to said mining ground, but are wanton trespassers thereon; that they are still mining the ground, the sole value of which consists of the gold therein; that, unless restrained, they will mine out the best and most valuable portion of the ground before the determination of the suit; and concludes with a prayer for judgment for SI,000, for a temporary, and on the final hearing, a perpetual injunction, and for general relief. The answer of the defendants denies that the plaintiffs ever were the owners or in the possession of the whole of the mining ground claimed in the complaint, or of any portion upon which they, the defendants, have ever mined, or from which they have ever removed any gold or gold-bearing earth of any value; they aver that they are the owners and in possession of certain mining ground in the same vicinity which they describe, and then deny that they have ever mined or removed any gold-bearing earth from any part of the ground described in the complaint, except so much thereof as may be within the boundaries of their own claims, to wrhich plaintiffs had no right, title, or possession. The replication denies that the defendants owned or possessed the premises described in the answer, or any portion thereof, except such portion as may lie easterly of a line drawn from a certain stake, mentioned in the description of defendants’ mining ground, and running north forty-eight degrees forty-five minutes west by magnetic meridian, but on the contrary plaintiffs are the owners and possessors of the ground lying westerly of said line. The pleadings are duly verified. The cause was tried by a jury, who found a verdict in [221]favor of the plaintiffs, with one dollar damages.” A temporary-injunction had been granted at the commencement of the suit. The Court rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs for one dollar, without costs, and ordered the temporary injunction to be dissolved. The plaintiffs asked the Court to render a judgment upon the verdict for one dollar, with costs, and for a perpetual injunction against mining the ground described in the plaintiffs’ complaint, which was refused by the Court, and to which the plaintiffs excepted, and they prosecute this appeal from the order dissolving the temporary injunction and the refusal to grant the perpetual injunction.

McLaughlin v. Kelly

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief