Hermocilla v. Hubbell
Before: Belcher
Synopsis
State School Lands—Congressional Grant — Mineral Lands. —The grant of the sixteenth and thirty-sixth sections of public land to the state, by the act of Congress of March 3, 1853, did not include lands known to be mineral at the date of the grant.
Id. — Grant in Presentí—Mines Subsequently Abandoned — Title of State. — The grant of the sixteenth and thirty-sixth sections being a grant in prcesenti, if the land was known to be mineral in character at the time the grant was made, no title passed to the state, and the fact that the mines upon the lands were worked out and abandoned as unprofitable, after the grant was made, gives the state no title to them.
Id. — Ejectment — State Patent — Collateral Attack — Rights of Mining Claimants — Privity with United States.—Defendants in possession of a sixteenth or thirty-sixth section, which was known to be mineral land prior to 1853, and who are holding it as mining claims under locations recently made in accordance with the law of Congress, and with the local rules and customs of miners, are in privity with the United States, and may attack a patent of the land from the state to the plaintiff, in an action of ejectment.
Id.—Evidence — Value of Mining Claims.—Evidence is admissible in favor of such defendants as to the work done by them on their mining claims since the date of their location, for the purpose of showing that the land, which was known to be mineral at the date of the grants, is still valuable for its minerals, and to overcome the theory of the plaintifls,. that they were of no value.
Belcher, C. This action is ejectment to recover possession of the east half of the east half of the southwest quarter, and the west half of the west half of the southeast quarter of a certain sixteenth section of land situate in Placer County. Other portions of the section are described in the complaint, but as no contest was made as to them, they need not be referred to further.
The defendants, Hubbell, Shea, and California Quartz Mining Company, alone answered. They denied all the averments of the complaint, and alleged that the portions of the section above described were, in 1850, and ever since had been, and then were, mineral lands of the United States, having known valuable mineral deposits therein, consisting of placers containing gold in paying quantities, and quartz ledges or deposits of gold-bearing rock in place, carrying gold and other precious metals in paying quantities, and that during all the times mentioned the said placers and quartz ledges had been, from time to time, in the actual possession of citizens of the United States, who were working and exploring the same for the gold and precious metals they contained. They further alleged that in the year 1880 two quartz mining claims, which are particularly described, were located on the demanded premises by citizens of the United States, and in conformity to the laws thereof, and the local rules, regulations, and customs of the mining district, one by the grantor of defendant Shea, and the other by the grantors of the defendant California Quartz Mining Company, and that the locators and the said defendants, as their successors in interest, had ever since held, possessed, and worked their respective claims as mining claims.
The case was tried by the court without a jury, and [8]judgment was entered that the defendants above named were the owners and entitled to the possession of their respective mining claims, as described, and as to them that the plaintiff take nothing; and that the plaintiff was the owner and entitled to the possession of all the balance of the land sued for, as against all of the defendants. From this judgment, so far as it was against her, and from an order denying a new trial, the plaintiff appeals.
The plaintiff claimed title under a patent from the state, issued to one Banvard, her grantor, in 1870, and the first question is, Was title to this land vested in the state at the’time of the issuance of the patent? If it -was, then the plaintiff was entitled to recover; and if not, we think the proper judgment was entered.
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)