Doe v. Tyler

Belcher, C. C. The contest in this case is about a piece of mining ground in San Bernardino County. .The plaintiff claims the ground under a mining location made by W. C. Stoughton on the twenty-fourth day of June, 1885, and the defendants claim it under a location made by the defendant Foster on the eighteenth day of July, 1885.

The ground in question appears to have been a piece of vacant ground lying between other claims, having a width at its northerly end of about 14 feet, and at its southerly end of about 235 feet, and a length of about 700 feet. It was bounded on the easterly side by a claim known as the Thunderer, on the westerly side by a claim known as the Veto, on the northerly end by two claims known as Occidental No. 1 and No. 2, and on its southerly end by a claim known as the Invincible.

The principal question in the case relates to the validity of Stoughton’s location. The court below held the location invalid, because all but one or two of the monu[22]ments erected to mark its boundaries were placed over upon the adjoining claims.

Stoughton made his location in the night-time. He was told by one Tucker that the ground was vacant, and advised to locate it. He went out with Tucker and marked off a claim, extending in length from the Invincible to the Occidental, and having a width of about two hundred feet at its north end, and of a little more than that at its south end. He erected a monument at each of its four corners, and at about the center of each of its end lines. He also placed a notice of location at the monument at the center of the south line. The northeast corner monument was over on the Thunderer claim, the northwest one was on the Veto claim, the center one at that end was on one of the Occidental claims, and the southeast and southwest ones may have been slightly over on the Thunderer and the Veto.

It seems to be admitted that the location would have been a good one if all the ground covered by it had been vacant, as then it would have been so marked out that its boundaries could be readily traced. But it is insisted that when Stoughton placed his monuments upon adjoining claims, which were held under valid locations, he was a trespasser, and could acquire no rights by such trespassing; that his acts were void, and he could claim nothing by reason of the monuments so placed; that the parcel of land in controversy was not so marked on the ground that its boundaries could be readily traced, and therefore his attempted location was wholly invalid.