Bender

Bender v. Lamb

Good Law
133 Cal. App. 348·1933 Cal. App. LEXIS 696·24 P.2d 208
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 18, 1933Docket No. 677.California448 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Turrentine, J.

This is a companion ease to Pidgeon v. Lamb, ante, p. 342 [ 24 Pac. (2d) 206 ], this day decided, and the facts are very similar. Plaintiffs sued defendant to quiet title to certain mining claims. Defendant denies plaintiffs’ title and asserts title in himself and the trial court gave judgment quieting title to the claims in defendant. Plaintiffs appeal.

In 1911 defendant’s predecessors located Sheep Creek Claims 1 to 10, inclusive, as placer mining claims where the United States survey had been extended over the land embraced in the locations by the legal subdivisions thereof. In 1929, plaintiffs located placer mining claims on Sheep Creek Claims 3 and 4. Plaintiffs claim that their junior location is paramount, asserting that defendant’s location was never lawfully made because the location notice was not posted at the point of discovery and that the boundaries were not marked upon the land. We have this day decided this question adversely to the claim of appellants in the case of Pidgeon v. Lamb, supra. The transcript does not purport to contain all the evidence or record of proceedings in the trial court.

Appellants urge that defendant has lost title to his mining claims by…

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.