Howeth v. Sullenger

California Supreme Court Jul 28, 1896 No. S. F. No. 102Published

Before: Haynes

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that specific findings of fact describing the placement of stakes and monuments at the corners and center lines of a mining claim were legally sufficient to satisfy the requirement that boundaries be readily traceable, rendering a contradictory general finding of insufficient marking invalid.

Issues

Whether the specific findings of fact regarding the placement of stakes and monuments constitute a sufficient marking of a mining claim under U.S. Revised Statutes section 2324.
Whether a general finding that a claim was not distinctly marked can stand when it contradicts specific findings of probative facts that demonstrate the claim was sufficiently marked.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Any marking on the ground claimed by stakes and mounds and written notices, whereby the boundaries of the claim located can be readily traced, is sufficient.”

“The sixth finding having shown that the claim was so marked upon the ground that its boundaries could be readily traced, the seventh finding is a mere conclusion from the specific facts found, and is wholly inconsistent therewith.”

Synopsis

Mining Claims—Application for Patent.—Determination of Adverse Claim—Validity of Location—Contradictory Findings.—In an action to determine an adverse claim filed in the land-office in opposition to an application for a patent, when the court found that neither of the parties were-entitled to the premises, but made specific findings from; which it appears conclusively that the claim was located by the adverse claimant in accordance with the laws of Congress, such specific finding cannot be disregarded, though in conflict with a general finding against the validity of such location, and such contradictory findings are ground for reversal of the judgment upon appeal by such adverse claimant.

Id.—Claim not in Mining District—Marking of Boundaries.—Where a claim is not in a mining district, any marking of the boundaries so that they can be readily traced, is sufficient; and stakes and stone monuments set at each corner of the claim and in the center of each end line, with one or more notices of location sufficient for identification of the claim, is a compliance with the statute.

Id.—Official Survey—Contraction of Claim—-Location Void Only as to Excess.—It is not material that an official survey of the claim does not correspond identically with the lines of location, since the courses and distances are only estimated by miners in making their locations, and when the location is in excess of the amount allowed by the law of Congress, the surveyor contracts the lines and draws in the monuments in conformity to the statute, the location as made by the miner being only void as to the excess.

Haynes, C. The defendants commenced proceedings under the mining laws of the United States to obtain a patent for the “White Rock Deposit” mining claim. The plaintiff in due time filed an adverse claim in the United States land-office, claiming the same ground under an alleged location thereof, and this action was brought to determine the rights of the parties to the ground in controversy. The cause was tried by the court without a jury; findings were filed, from which, as a conclusion of law, the court found that neither party was entitled to the premises, and dismissed the action, each party to pay his own costs, and from the judgment entered thereon the defendants appeal upon the judgment-roll.

The findings show that appellants attempted to locate the ground in question on November 4, 1882, under the name of the “Comet,” and all the facts necessary to show a valid location are recited, except that it was said that “the marking of said location claim on the ground was such that its boundaries could not be readily traced”; and it was further found that from that time until the twenty-ninth day of April, 1890, they were in the sole and undisputed possession, holding the same by virtue of their attempted location. The sixth and seventh findings are as follows:

“6. That having formerly discovered a lode or deposit of mineral or mineral-bearing rock bearing magnesite, on the twenty-ninth day of April, 1890, defendants [549]attempted to make a relocation of the said lands and premises, under the name of the “White Rock Deposit,’ by posting thereupon in conspicuous places, viz., on a pine tree near the ledge, and on the said south center stake of the land so claimed, notices in which the names of the locators, the date of location, and description of said lands and premises, by reference to permanent monuments sufficient for identification of said claim, were given, and thereupon marking said location on the ground by erecting a stake three or four inches in diameter and four or five feet high, in a mound of rocks two or three feet across and eighteen to twenty-four inches high, at the north end, and another at the south end of the center line, and a like stake and mound at each of the four corners of their claim; which marking and location embraced the lands and premises in dispute.

“7. Said locations were not distinctly marked on the ground so that their boundaries could be readily traced.”

The court further found that the location notice was duly recorded, that the requisite amount of work was performed, that it had been surveyed under the direction of the United States surveyor general, “showing accurately the boundaries of the claim distinctly marked by monuments on the ground.”

Howeth v. Sullenger

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief