Smith v. Masonic Mines Ass'n

California Court of Appeal Mar 25, 1922 No. Civ. No. 2428Published

Before: Finch

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the parties' stipulation at trial to limit the scope of the litigation to the boundary line between the two mining claims precluded the defendants from challenging the plaintiff's ownership on appeal. Furthermore, the court found that the trial court's minor error in describing the location of a monument was immaterial because established boundary monuments control over courses and distances.

Issues

Whether the defendants could challenge the plaintiff's ownership on appeal after stipulating at trial to limit the issues to the location of the boundary line.
Whether the trial court's error in describing the location of a monument in its findings was material to the judgment.
Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's findings regarding the boundary line.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“After the understanding had between the court and respective counsel as to the scope of the trial and after the completion of the trial on the theory that but the one issue was involved, appellants cannot now be heard to complain”

“Courses and distances must give way to ascertained monuments.”

Synopsis

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Mono County. Pat R. Parker, Judge. Affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

FINCH, P. J. The defendants appeal from a judgment quieting plaintiff’s title to certain mining property.

The plaintiff alleged ownership, in fee of the property and that defendants claimed an interest therein adverse to him. [173]The answer denied plaintiff’s ownership and admitted that the defendants claimed an interest in the property.

Defendants demurred to the complaint on the grounds that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and “that the same is uncertain in that it alleges ownership in fee, in plaintiff, and then bases title on a mining location made by one Ormand Smith.” The complaint contains the usual allegations of an action to quiet title and the reference therein to the mining location by Smith is merely for the purpose of describing the property. Neither ground of demurrer, therefore, has merit.

The property described in the complaint is known as the Snow Shoe mine or mining location. From the briefs it may be gathered that the defendants own the Chemung mine lying to the south of the Snow Shoe, the north end line of the Chemung coinciding with the south end line of the Snow Shoe. Neither party proved ownership and appellants contend that the judgment must be reversed for such failure of proof. At the beginning of the trial the following occurred:

“The Court: The complaint seems to be in the usual

form for an action to quiet title. From what has occurred, I take it that the main controversy is as to the boundaries of the claim of plaintiff.

“Judge Murphey: That is the only question in so far as it appears to me to get at, and if I recollect right it is the south line of the Snow Shoe and the north boundary line of the Chemung—is that correct?

“M'r. Whitmore: That is the line in controversy. There may be other questions arise later.

“Judge Murphey: It is the southern boundary line of the Snow Shoe and the northern boundary line of the Chemung claim.

“The Court: The understanding will be for the present at least to limit the testimony to the location of the boundary, assuming that Mox Smith was the owner of the Snow Shoe Mine and that he is now dead, and that action is being brought by his administrator, duly appointed by the order of the court?

Smith v. Masonic Mines Ass'n

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief