Souter v. Maguire

Hayne, C. Action to quiet title to a mining claim, and for an injunction. The trial court gave judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendants appeal.

The appellants make a number of points in regard to the pleadings and findings, which are based upon the idea that it is not sufficient in cases of this character for the plaintiff to allege that he is “the owner” of the property, but that he must set out the facts showing him to be such. But ever since the case of Payne v. Treadwell, 16 Cal. 242, it has been held that the ownership is the ultimate fact, and that, as a general rule, it is sufficient to allege it in terms. (Garwood v. Hastings, 38 Cal. 217; Ferrer v. Home Mutual Ins. Co., 47 Cal. 431; Miller v. Brigham, 50 Cal. 615.) And this is true in actions to quiet title to paining claims. (Thompson v. Spray, 72 Cal. 534.)

The findings are more specific than the complaint. They set forth a number of secondary facts, from [545]which it necessarily follows that the plaintiff’s allegation as to ownership is true. It is well settled that this is proper. (Coveny v. Hale, 49 Cal. 555; Alhambra Water Co. v. Richardson, 72 Cal. 601.) The appellants object that the findings do not dispose of certain issues raised by the pleadings. But the issue as to abandonment is sufficiently disposed of by the finding that when the claim was located the plaintiff took possession of said claim, and constantly and continuously maintained such possession, and performed annually thereon the assessment work and labor required by law, to wit, one hundred dollars per annum for each and every year down to and including the time of the commencement of this action.” The affirmative defense setting up the elements of the defendants’ claim is disposed of by the findings showing that the plaintiff’s claim was valid. For if the plaintiff’s claim was valid, a subsequent location by another, no matter how correct in form the proceedings may be, is invalid. (Belk v. Meagher, 104 U. S. 284.) And the issue as to damages is immaterial, because the judgment did not give plaintiff any damages. The pleadings and findings seem to ns to be sufficient.

The appellants contend, however, that the findings are not supported by the evidence. It is expressly admitted that it must be held that the plaintiff performed the required amount of "work. The respects in which it is claimed that the evidence is insufficient are the following:—

(a) It is said that there is no evidence that the plaintiff discovered a vein or lode. But we think there was sufficient evidence on this point.