Gelcich v. Moriarty
Synopsis
Possession of Mining Claim—Findings.—To support a decree granting title based on actual possession of mining ground, the findings must show that the party has had possession of a definite part of the ground.
Ineffectual Location of Mining Claim.—The placing of a monument in the center of a mining claim upon a mineral vein,and posting a notice thereon stating that the “ undersigned claims seven hundred and fifty feet easterly and seven hundred and fifty feet westerly therefrom, together with three hundred feet on each side of the vein, with all its dips, spurs, and angles,” giving the name of the lode and district, is not a sufficient compliance with the Act of Congress of May 10th, 1872, which requires locators of mining claims to distinctly mark their locations on the ground, so that the boundaries can be readily traced.
By the Court : The findings do not show that plaintiff has had the possession of any definite part of the mining ground in controversy, and plaintiff is therefore noi entitled to a decree based on his actual possession of any specific portion.
Nor dó the findings show that either jiarty has acquired title under the Act of Congress of May 10th, 1872; both parties having attempted to make location after the passage of that' act, and both having failed to distinctly mark their locations on the ground so that the boundaries can be readily traced.
Judgment and order reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)