Holland v. Mount Auburn Gold Quartz Mining Co. (1878) · DecisionDepot

Holland v. Mount Auburn Gold Quartz Mining Co.

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1878 No. No. 5654Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the plaintiffs' mining location was invalid because the defendant held prior possession and the plaintiffs failed to distinctly mark the boundaries of their claim as required by the Act of Congress of May 10, 1872.

Issues

Whether the plaintiffs' mining location was valid under the Act of Congress of May 10, 1872, given the defendant's prior possession.
Whether the plaintiffs complied with the statutory requirement to distinctly mark the boundaries of their mining claim.

Disposition. Reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The defendant was in possession of the mining ground prior to the dates when the plaintiffs attempted to locate it”

“Before the commencement of this action the location of plaintiffs was not distinctly marlced on the ground so that its boundaries could be readily traced, as required by the Act.”

Synopsis

Insufficient Location of Mining Claim:. —The posting of a notice upon a tree at each end of a mining claim is not a sufficient compliance with sec. 2324 of the Devised Statutes of the United States, which requires the location to ho “ distinctly marked on the ground so that its boundaries can he readily traced.”

By the Court : The defendant was in possession of the mining ground prior to the dates when the plaintiffs attempted to locate it, under the provisions of the Act of Congress of May 10, 1872.

Before the commencement of this action the location of plaintiffs was not distinctly marlced on the ground so that its boundaries could be readily traced, as required by the Act. (Rev. Stats. U. S. sec. 2324.)

Judgment and order reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.

Holland v. Mount Auburn Gold Quartz Mining Co.

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief