Chicago Quartz Mining Co. v. Oliver (1888) · DecisionDepot

Chicago Quartz Mining Co. v. Oliver

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

California Supreme Court Feb 29, 1888 No. No. 12090Published

Before: Sharpsteih

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that mineral lands were expressly excepted from the railroad land grant by act of Congress, and a patent issued for such lands does not convey title to mineral lands regardless of the patent's issuance.

Issues

Whether mineral lands were reserved or excepted from the railroad land grant under the acts of 1862 and 1864.
Whether a patent for land is conclusive evidence that the land is non-mineral and thus included in the grant.
Whether a patent can be collaterally impeached by showing the land was mineral in character and therefore excluded from the grant.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In the original act there is a proviso that all mineral lands shall be excepted from its operation, and in the amendatory act that the grant shall not include any mineral lands.”

“Whatever is included in the exception is excluded from the grant; and it therefore often becomes important to ascertain what is excepted in order to determine what is granted.”

“A patent may be collaterally impeached in any action, and its operation as a conveyance defeated, by showing that it had no jurisdiction to dispose of the lands”

Synopsis

' • Grant to Central Pacific Railroad—Mineral Lands not Included —Conclusiveness op Patent—Evidence op Character op Land.— A patent issued by the United States government to the Central Pacific -Railroad Company, for land included within the boundaries of the grant 'mude to it by the act of Congress of July I, 1862, and the amendatory act of July 2, 1864, is not conclusive evidence that the land covered by the patent is non-mineral in character; and a person claiming the land under a subsequent mining patent, in an action by him to quiet his title against a grantee of the railroad company, may show that the land is mineral, and therefore excepted from the operation of the grant to the company, and upon such showing being made, is entitled to have his title quieted.

Sharpsteih, J. This is an action to quiet title. The plaintiff claims under a mining patent issued August 16, 1883; defendant under a patent issued to the Central Pacific Railroad Company, dated April 18, 1870.

[196]The only question is, whether the title to the premises in controversy vested in the railroad company under the act of Congress entitled “ An act to aid in the construction of a railroad and telegraph line from the Missouri River to the Pacific Ocean,” etc., approved July 1, 1862, and the act amendatory thereof, approved July 2, 1864.

The land is within the boundaries of one of the sections covered by that grant, and if not reserved or excepted from it, undoubtedly vested in the railroad company. So that the question is, Was the land reserved or excepted from the grant to the railroad comb pany ?

In the original act there is a proviso that all mineral lands shall be excepted from its operation, and in the amendatory act that the grant shall not include any mineral lands. And the Revised Statutes provide that “no act passed at the first session of the thirty-eighth Congress granting lands to states or corporations, to aid in the construction of roads or for other purposes, or to extend the time of grants made prior to the thirtieth day of January, 1865, shall be so construed as to embrace mineral lands, which in all cases are reserved exclusively to the United States, unless otherwise officially provided in the act or acts making the grant.” (U. S. Rev. Stats., sec. 2346.)

The patent under which defendant claims contains-this clause:—

“ Excluding and excepting from the transfer by these presents ‘ all mineral lands/ should any be found • to exist in the tracts described in the foregoing.”

The court found “that all the land described in said complaint as the Chicago quartz mine is valuable gold-bearing mineral land, and has been notoriously known and frequently worked as such ever since 1861.”

This finding is justified by the evidence, and is not assailed by appellant. But while conceding the fact to he as found, he contends that the title to the land, never[197]

Chicago Quartz Mining Co. v. Oliver

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief