Packer v. Doray

PER CURIAM. This is an action to quiet the plaintiffs.’ title to certain tailing mining claims, called the “Alturas Company’s Mining Claims,” situate in Slate creek, and partly in Sierra county and partly in Plumas county. The claims described extend up and down the creek about twenty-six thousand feet and contain an area of about one hundred and twelve acres. The defendants deny that the plaintiffs are, or [298]ever were, the owners or in possession of that portion of the claims described, commencing at the upper end thereof, and extending down the creek about ten thousand feet; and they allege that as to such portion of the claims they are, and were at the time of the commencement of the action, and long prior thereto, the owners, and in possession thereof; and, as to the balance of the claims described in the complaint, they disclaim having or claiming any estate or interest in or to the same. The case was tried by the court and the findings were that neither the plaintiffs, nor either of them, nor their grantors or predecessors, ever owned or possessed, or were entitled to the possession of, the mining ground described in the answers of defendants, and that at the time of the commencement of the action the defendants were the owners of, and in the actual possession of, all the mining ground described in their answers, and claimed by them. Judgment was accordingly entered that the plaintiffs take nothing, that their action be dismissed, and that defendants recover their costs. Prom this judgment and an order denying their motion for a new trial the plaintiffs appeal.

1. The principal contention of appellants is that the findings were not justified by the evidence, and hence that the judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial. The evidence brought up in the transcript is evidently stated as briefly as possible, and still it covers about one hundred printed pages. It relates to sundry attempted locations; to the customs of miners; to work done on different portions of the ground, commencing as early as 1855; and to numerous, transfers of interest claimed to have been acquired under such locations. To state the facts in detail would require much space, and subserve no useful purpose. In our opinion, it is enough to say that, while there was some conflict, there was evidence clearly tending to justify and support the findings, and hence that the judgment cannot be reversed on this ground.

2. It is urged that numerous errors of law were committed by the court during the progress of the trial which call for a reversal of the judgment. The notice of intention to move for a new trial stated that it would be made upon the minutes of the court, and it was so made. The notice specified the particulars in which the evidence was alleged to be insufficient