Houck

Houck v. Jose

Good Law
72 F. Supp. 6·1947 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2434
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaJune 14, 1947703California2,558 words

Opinion

Opinion

Yankwich, J.

By their complaint, Stanley B. Houck and others seek to quiet title to sixteen placer mining claims containing deposits of montmorillonite, all located in Imperial County, California, and being in Township 14 South, Range 12 East, San Bernardino Base arid Meridian.

At the trial I expressed doubt whether one who has no greater interest than a mining location could bring an action to quiet title. A further study of the problem has led me to the conclusion that the action is maintainable under the recognized principle that one who is in the process of acquiring a title to public lands has a property right which may be protected either by an action for ejectment or one to quiet title. See Gauthier v. Morrison, 1913, 232 U.S. 452 , 34 S.Ct. 384 , 58 L.Ed. 680 ; Fox Film Corporation v. Doyal, 1932, 286 U.S. 123, 129 , 52 S.Ct. 546 , 76 L.Ed. 1010 ; Martin v. Bartmus, 1922, 189 Cal. 87 , 207 P. 550 .

Each mining claim consists of 160 acres. Two groups of defendants, to be referred to as the Jose group, headed by J. A. Jose, and the Hammond group, headed by Harris H. Hammond, have answered denying the title of the plaintiffs. Each of the three groups claims title for itself. The…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.