Smith v. Hill

California Supreme Court May 18, 1891 No. No. 13853Published

Before: Paterson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a town-site patent conveys valid title to land unless the land was known to contain valuable mineral deposits at the time the patent was issued. Subsequent discovery of minerals does not invalidate a title granted under the town-site laws.

Issues

Whether a town-site patent is invalid if minerals are discovered on the land after the patent is issued.
Whether a superior court judge, as successor to a county judge, has the authority to convey land held in trust under a town-site patent.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The term “ mine of gold, silver, cinnabar, or copper,” as used in the exception found in the act and in the reservation of the patent, means a paying mine known to exist at the time of the grant to the county judge”

“Congress only intended to preserve existing rights to known mines of gold, silver, cinnabar, or copper, and to known mining claims and possessions, against any assertion of title to them by virtue of the conveyances received under the town-site act”

Synopsis

Town-site Grant — Mining Claim—Knowledge or Value.—Under section 2392 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, providing that no title shall be acquired, under the provisions relating to town sites, “ to any mine of gold, silver, cinnabar, or copper, or to any valid mining claim or possession held under existing laws,” there must be a paying mine known to exist at the time of the town-site grant, or one which there was good reason to believe then existed, in order to deprive a town-site owner of his land.

Id.—Patent to County Judge—Conveyance by Superior Judge — Oeetcial Trust — Succession. — Under the constitution and laws of the state, making the superior courts successors to the county courts, and clothing the judges of the superior courts with the powers formerly exercised by the county judges, where a town-site patent was issued to a county judge, of lauds to be held in trust by him for the use and benefit of the town, the trust created by the patent is an official trust, and the superior court judge, as the successor of the county judge, is authorized to convey the land.

Id. — Action to Quiet Title — Evidence — Application foe Survey of Mining Claim. — In an action to quiet title, brought by a mining claimant against a claimant under a town-site patent, evidence tending to show that, seven years prior to the date of the town-site patent, a number of persons sent to the United States surveyor-general a request for the survey of the mining claim, one of whom was the grantor of the plaintiff, is incompetent and immaterial.

Paterson, J. — This is an action to quiet title. The answer denies that the plaintiff is the owner or ever was entitled to the possession of any lands in block 1, except as a miner under the mining laws of the United States, and avers that any right he ever had was lost by reason of his failure to comply with the provisions of section 2324 of the Revised Statutes of the United States; alleges that defendant Belle Hill is the owner and entitled to the possession of the property. In further defense, the defendants alleged that the lands in controversy are part of section 10, township 12 north, range 8 east, Mount Diablo base and meridian, and are, and for twenty years last past [124]have heen, mineral lands; that in 1871 the lands were, and ever since have been, generally and well known to contain, and did in fact contain, a valuable mine of gold-bearing quartz, and since said year have been worked as such under valid mining locations, and large quantities of gold have been from time to time extracted therefrom; that on June 1, 1887, and while the lands were open to location as public mineral lands, the defendant Belle Hill duly located the mine and ground as a quartz-mining claim, by posting a notice in due form and filing a copy thereof in the office of the county recorder, as required by the mining customs of the district; that she took possession under her said location, and has ever since, and for more than five years last past, held the same, and has complied with the provisions of said section 2324.

The court found that on April 15, 1879, a patent was issued to J. I. Fitch, county judge of Placer County, for the lands in controversy, among others, to be held by him in trust for the use and benefit of the inhabitants of the town of Auburn; that thereafter the lands were surveyed and platted in blocks and lots, and the lands were described therein as lot 2, block 1, in northwest quarter of said section 10, and were designated as surveyed to and claimed by M. Dodsworth (plaintiff’s grantor); that at the time of the issuance of the patent to said county judge there was no mine of gold, silver, cinnabar, or copper therein, or any valid mining claim or possession; that on June 8, 1881, B. F. Myers, judge of the superior court of the county of Placer, as successor of said Fitch, conveyed the land to said Dodsworth, and at that time there was no such mine or mining claim thereon; that on April 18, 1888, said Dodsworth conveyed to plaintiff; that on January 1, 1887, defendant Belle Hill posted a notice of location on the lands as mining lands, and on September 29, 1888, posted an amended notice claiming the lands as mining lands,

Smith v. Hill

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief