Ferguson v. Neville

Morrison, C. J.: The statement on motion for a new trial in the above case presents the following state of facts: The plaintiffs on the trial introduced evidence showing that on the seventh day of December, 1876, the mining ground described in the complaint was a portion of the mineral land of the United States; that [357]on that day Rose and Rehberg, who were both citizens of the United States, over the age of twenty-one years, located said ground as a mining claim in accordance with the local rules and customs of miners in that vicinity, and according to, and fully complying with, the provisions of the Acts of Congress relating to such locations; that thereupon Rose and Rehberg went into the possession and occupancy of the premises, each claiming the undivided one half thereof, and.remained in the possession and occupancy thereof until May, 1877, at which time Rehberg conveyed his interest to one Hoffman, a citizen of the United States, over the age of twenty-one years; and that thereafter Rose and Hoffman remained in possession of the premises in controversy until the month of July, 1877, in which month they conveyed to Wing Hung and others, who were aliens, and natives of the Empire of China. None of the grantees of Rose and Hoffman had made or filed a declaration of intention to become citizens of the United States. In July, 1878, Wing Hung and others, the grantees of Rose and Hoffman, conveyed the mining ground in controversy to the plaintiff Ferguson, who entered into the possession and occupancy of the same until the twenty-eighth day of October, 1878. On the seventh day of October, 1878, the plaintiff, Ferguson, conveyed an undivided one half interest in the property to the plaintiff Hillhouse. It is admitted, that on the twenty-eighth day of October, 1878, the grantors of the defendant, who were citizens of the United States, and over the ago of twenty-one years, located the ground in dispute as a mining claim, in accordance with the local rules and customs of miners, in that vicinity, and in accordance with the provisions of the Acts of Congress relating to such locations, and that defendant and his grantors remained in the possession thereof down to the time when this suit was commenced.

Plaintiffs brought this action to quiet their title to the mining ground, and were nonsuited. Afterwards the Court below set aside the nonsuit and granted plaintiffs a new trial. From the order granting a new trial defendant prosecutes this appeal.

Defendant relies upon Section 2319 Revised Statutes, of the United States, in support of the appeal. That section reads as follows: