Mery v. Brodt

California Supreme Court Jun 30, 1898 No. Sac. No. 428Published

Before: Garoutte

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A valid mining claimant who has performed all necessary legal requirements to entitle them to a patent possesses sufficient privity of title to maintain an equitable action to have a fraudulently obtained timber patent held in trust for their benefit.

Issues

Whether a mining claimant has sufficient privity of title to challenge a patent obtained by another through fraud.
Whether a fraudulent patentee is entitled to reimbursement for expenses incurred in procuring a patent as a condition of equitable relief.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“when the government has grounds for canceling a patent theretofore issued by it, based upon imposition and fraud, then an individual properly connected with the paramount source of title may bring an action similar to that brought by these plaintiffs.”

“The locator of a mining claim under the laws of the United States has the right to the exclusive possession and enjoyment of that claim; he has an estate of inheritance; he has a title which can only pass by deed.”

Synopsis

Trust—Mining Claim—Timber Patent—Fraub—False Testimony.—A bill in equity will lie in favor of the locators of a mining claim who had been for many years in its exclusive possession, had expended large sums .of money in developing it, and had complied with all the de-, mands of law to support a valid location of the claim, to enforce a trust against the holder of a patent obtained under the timber act, without actual notice to the mining claimants, and by false and fraudulent testimony that the land was not occupied, contained no-improvements thereon, and no indications of deposits of mineral therein, and was chiefly valuable for the timber growing thereon, whereby the officers of the government were deceived and misled and induced by belief of such false testimony to issue the patent.

Id.—Cancellation of Patent—Privity with Source of Title.—It is a rule without exception that when the government has grounds for the cancellation of a patent theretofore issued by it, based upon imposition and fraud, an individual who is properly connected with the para-' mount source of title may bring an action to enforce a trust against the patentee and compel a conveyance from him.

Id.—Occupancy—Right to Purchase.—A stranger or occupant without right cannot assail a patent for fraud practiced against the government; but an occupant with a right to purchase and obtain a patent, irom the government may attack a patent issued in fraud of his rights, and upon equitable terms may demand a conveyance from the patentee.

Id.—Rights of Mining Claimants—Enforcement of Trust.—A mining claim, properly located and held in accordance with the laws of the federal government, is the property of the locators and transmissible as real estate, needing only a patent to render the title perfect; and until the patent is issued the government holds the title in trust for the locators, or their heirs or vendees; and they occupy such a status as to entitle them to control the legal title and obtain a patent from the government, upon compliance with required conditions, and to enable them to enforce a trust against a fraudulent patentee and compel him to make conveyance of the title.

Id.—Timber Patent—False Testimony—Forfeiture—Title.— A timber patent obtained upon false testimony carries the legal title to the patentee, though the timber act declares that he “shall forfeit the money which he may have paid for the lands, and all right and title to the same; and any grant or conveyance which he may have made, except in the hands of bona fide purchasers, shall be null and void.” If he has no title, there would be none to forfeit; and his grant to a bona fide purchaser could not vest title, unless it rested in the patentee.

Id.—Forfeited Monet not to be Returned.—The rule that, when the government attacks a fraudulent patent, the fraudulent patentee is not entitled to a return of his money as a condition precedent to the cancellation of the patent, applies to the enforcement of a trust by the owners of a valid mining claim against a fraudulent patentee who has forfeited his money to the government under the timber act, and the plaintiffs should not be required to make such money good. The labor and expense of prosecuting the action, necessarily entailed by the fraudulent acts of the defendant, counterbalance any alleged claim of equity in his favor.

GAROUTTE, J. This action is inaugurated by a bill in equity, which asks that certain lands be declared by judicial decree to be held in trust by defendant for the use and benefit of plaintiffs, and that a conveyance thereof be made by him to them. The evidence is not in the record, and the appeal from the judgment is to be considered upon the pleadings and findings. By the judgment plaintiffs were granted the relief sought.

Without detailing in full the findings of fact made by the trial court, it may be said that the material facts for our consideration are as follows: Plaintiffs were valid and legal locators of mining claims covering the land in dis2mte. They had been such locators for many years, were in the exclusive possession of the land all of the time, had spent twenty thousand dollars upon the property in mining work, and had complied with all demands of the law tending to support a valid mining location. These conditions being present, defendant Brodt filed a claim for the lanj under the timber act. In due time he gave his notices, made his proofs and payments at the land office, and a patent to the land was issued to him by the land department of the United States. These proceedings were all had by defendant and the government without any actual notice to plaintiffs, and, consequently, without objection upon their part. It [334]is found as a fact that defendant and his witnesses when making final proof before the land office upon application for the patent testified that the said land was not occupied, and no improvements of any kind thereon; that the land contained no indications of deposits of any Idnd of mineral, and was chiefly valuable for the timber growing thereon; that said testimony was false and fraudulent, and was given for the purpose of misleading and deceiving the officers of the government, and that said officers were in fact deceived and misled thereby. It was further found that the material allegations of defendant’s appli-„ cation, made under oath, were false and fraudulent, and were made with the intent to deceive and mislead the officers of the land department, and did so mislead said officers. It is also found that one of the witnesses for défendant before the land office was well acquainted with these lands, and had been upon them at various times, and examined the work being done by plaintiffs, and was familiar with such work; he knew that mining was being carried on upon the land, that such land was claimed by plaintiffs as a mining claim, and that they had expended many thousands of dollars in the development of the claim. It was further found as a fact that the officers of the land department believed all this testimony, and issued a patent to defendant for these lands based upon this showing.

Mery v. Brodt

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief