Correa v. Frietas

California Supreme Court Oct 15, 1871 No. No. 2,495Published

Before: Temple

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a mining claim locator's possession is presumed necessary for the working of the claim, and a subsequent party cannot intrude upon that claim based on a jury's determination that the land is not valuable or that the locator's operations are unnecessary.

Issues

Whether a subsequent party may construct a ditch upon another's mining claim if it does not interfere with the prior locator's mining operations.
Whether evidence regarding the lack of value of mining ground or the lack of necessity for a flume extension is admissible to justify intrusion upon a mining claim.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In the absence of some custom which would restrict their right of possession, they ought not to be deprived of that right, because another may be able to convince a jury that such extension is really not beneficial to the worthing of their mine.”

“The evidence that the ground was not valuable for mining purposes could not be admissible, on general principles, to prove that defendants had no right to hold it.”

Synopsis

Mining Law-^-Extension of Plume on One’s own Claim not a Nuisance.—Where defendants owned and possessed a hydraulic claim on Dutch Ravine, into which their flume emptied, and plaintiff, being the owner of a claim below, dug a ditch, commencing on defendants’ claim but below their flume, for the purpose of appropriating the water discharged therefrom, and thereupon defendants’ extended their flume further down on their own claim but so as to prevent such appropriation by plaintiff: held, that defendants’ had a right to such extension, though there might be a question as to whether it served any useful purpose or not, and that it could not be abated by plaintiff as a nuisance.

Extent of Right of Possessor of Mining Claim. — The owner and possessor of a mining claim on public land has a right to prevent any subsequent comer from erecting or constructing any superstructure, cut, or ditch on his claim, unless the right to construct the same is given by some mining custom or regulation.

Character of Possession of Mining Claims. — The character of the possession necessary to work mining claims will vary with the nature of the mines, the mode adopted in working them, and, perhaps, with the char- „ acter of the country.

Presumption as to TJse of Entire Mining Claim.—If parties are allowed by mining regulations to include within their claim land outside of that which they expect to work, it will be presumed, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that it is for the convenience of working the claims, and that its possession is necessary.

Right oe Owner to Evert Portion oe Mining Claim.—Evidence that a portion of a mining claim is not valuable for mining purposes is not admissible, on general principles, to prove that the owner of the claim has no right to hold such portion.

By the Court, Temple, J.: The defendants were the owners and in possession of certain mining claims situate on Dutch Ravine, including the bed and banks of the ravine. They worked their claims by the hydraulic process, and had leading down the ravine a tail flume, used for carrying off their tailings and water, and for collecting and saving their gold. While the defendants were working their claims in this manner, the plaintiff, who owned mining claims below the defendants, commenced the construction of a ditch below the lower end of defendants’ flume, but upon the mining claims of defendants, for the purpose of appropriating the water discharged from the defendants’ flume for his own use in working his claim. The water used by defendants consisted of the natural water of the ravine, and other water purchased by them from a ditch company.

About the time plaintiff’s ditch was completed, but before water had been turned into it, defendants extended their flume to a point on the ravine below plaintiff’s ditch, so that it was impossible for plaintiff to turn the water into his ditch. [343]The terminus of the flume, as extended, is still upon the mining claims of the defendants.

It is claimed that the extension of the defendants’ flume could serve no useful purpose, and was done maliciously to deprive plaintiff of the use of the water; and this suit is brought to abate it (the extended portion) as a nuisance.

The evidence upon the trial was conflicting upon the question whether the extension to the ditch was advantageous to defendants in working their claims, and upon the question whether the maintenance of the plaintiff’s ditch would interfere with the flow of water and tailings from the defendants’ flume. The evidence tended to prove that the portion of defendants’ claims through which plaintiff’s ditch was cut was worthless for mining purposes. This evidence was admitted against the objections of defendants’ counsel, as was evidence which tended to show that the extension of defendants’ flume was not beneficial to the working of their claims.

The defendants asked the Court to instruct the jury that “the owner and possessor of a mining claim on the public domain has a right to prevent any subsequent comer from erecting or constructing any superstructure, cut, or ditch, on his claim, unless the right to construct the same is given by some mining custom or regulation.” This instruction was refused, but the Court instructed the jury, in effect, that if the plaintiff was the owner of a mining claim on the same ravine, below the defendants, he had a right to use the natural waters of the ravine for the purpose of working his claim; that he could lawfully construct a ditch upon the mining ground of the defendants for that purpose, provided he in nowise obstructed or interfered with the defendants in the proper working of their mining ground, nor in their perfect enjoyment of the same for mining purposes; that one person might appropriate public mineral land for mining purposes, and another party use the same for a different purpose, provided the different uses did not conflict.

Correa v. Frietas

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief