McCormick v. Sutton

California Supreme Court Feb 24, 1893 No. No. 18053Published

Before: McFarland

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A town site patent conveys a perfect fee simple title to a lot, and subsequent mining locations on that land are invalid if the land was not known to contain valuable minerals at the time of the patent. Furthermore, constructive possession of land by a mining claimant does not extend to land already held and possessed by the owner of the true title.

Issues

Whether a town site patent conveys title to land containing minerals discovered after the patent's issuance.
Whether a mining location on land held under a town site patent is valid if the land was not known to be mineral at the time of the patent.
Whether a mining claimant can establish constructive possession over land held by the true owner.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the law is clearly established to be, that a patent to a town Site conveys a perfect title in fee, except as to such land as was known to contain valuable mines before the issuance of the patent.”

“lot 50 was not known to contain a valuable mine at the date of the patent; and therefore the respondents obtained no title to any portion of the lot by virtue of the attempted mining location”

“where the owner of the true title is also in possession, the constructive possession follows his title, except as to that part of the land which is in the actual adverse possession of the intruder.”

Synopsis

■ Town Site Patent — Mineral Lands. — A patent to a town site conveys a perfect title in fee, except as to sueh land as was known to contain valuable mines before the issuance of the patent.

Id. — Discovert of Mineral before Improvement of Lot. — Where a town site patent has been issued, and a deed to a lot thereof has been regularly granted by the town authorities to an individual claiming it, the deed carries to the grantee a perfect title, where no mine has been discovered, and the land was not known to be mineral at the date of the patent; and the discovery of a mine after the execution of the deed, and before the occupancy of the lot for residence or business purposes, will not give the mining claimant the right to the property as against the grantee under the town site.

Id.—Location of Mining Claim — Patented Land.—An attempted location of a mining claim upon a lot, the title to which has passed into private ownership by patent from the United States, is invalid.

Adverse Possession — Constructive Possession — Rights of Owner in Pee — Entry of Intruder under Written Instrument. — Where the owner of the true title to land is in possession thereof, the constructive possession follows his title, except as to that part of the land which is in the actual adverse possession of an intruder, and the latter cannot acquire constructive adverse possession against the owner in fee by entry under a written instrument.

McFarland, J. This is an action to quiet title to a piece of land described as lot 50, in a certain block in the city of Sonora, county of Tuolumne. The defendants-filed separate answers, and each claimed title to a large portion of said lot by virtue of an alleged location and ownership of a quartz-mining claim, called the San Guiseppi Quartz Mine; and defendant Sutton further averred that he had been in the adverse possession of that portion of said mine which is embraced in said lot 50 for more than five years before the commencement of the suit, and pleaded the statute of limitations. Judgment went in the lower court for the defendants, and the court decreed that Sutton was entitled to the possession of all that part of said lot 50 which was included within the said alleged mining claim. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment, and from an order denying a new trial.

It appears from the findings that on March 24, 1874, the government of the United States issued its patent of the town site of the city of Sonora to the trustees of said city. Said lot 50 was a part of said town site, and [375]was conveyed by the said trustees on the 6th of August, 1874, to one Oliver Cowan, and by several mesne conveyances the title under the said town site patent to said lot 50 passed from said Cowan to the appellant before the commencement of this action.

About nine years afterwards, to wit, in January, 1883, the respondent Sutton and one Gerlach undertook to locate a certain quartz-mining claim, generally known as the Guiseppi. They posted and recorded a notice, claiming fifteen hundred feet along a certain quartz ledge, with three hundred feet surface ground on either side, properly designated its boundaries, and since then have done sufficient work within said boundaries to comply with the laws of Congress upon the subject. The surface location included a large part of lot 50. The apex of the vein located was outside of said lot 50, but the vein in its dip extended under the surface ground of said lot. Gerlach afterwards conveyed his interest to Sutton, and the respondent Halsey claims the right of possession, under a contract with Sutton. ■

It is not entirely clear upon what theory the court below decided the case in favor of respondents. It is true that there is a finding to the effect that Sutton held the mining claim adversely for more than five years, and counsel for respondent in some parts of his brief seems to found his right upon such adverse possession; but some of the findings of the court and arguments of respondent seem to go upon the theory that the town site patent did not convey any mines that might be in the land, although not discovered until after the date of the patent of the town site. The court also found that the said Cowan, the original grantee from the town authorities, did not occupy said lot 50 as a residence, or as a place of business, or for any purpose; and from a quotation made by counsel for respondent from the opinion of the court in Deffeback v. Hawke, 115 U. S. 392, and quoted in Richards v. Dower, 81 Cal. 44, it would seem that both court and counsel were of opin

McCormick v. Sutton

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief