Hubbard

The action arises over conflicting claims to mining property. Plaintiffs had judgment that they were entitled to the possession of the premises in controversy, and the appeal is by defendants from said judgment.

The points urged by appellants for a reversal of the judgment are: That respondents failed to do their assessment work for the years 1913 and 1914; and “that at the time of location by the predecessors of respondents said land was not open to location.”

1. The court found that plaintiffs and their predecessors have in all respects complied with the laws “relating to the performance of assessment work upon said claims.” While there was a conflict in the evidence upon this point there was, in our opinion, sufficient justification for said finding and, under the well-known rule, we must decline to enter upon a discussion of this point.

2. The contention that the land was not open for location is based upon the following facts:

Defendants located a portion of said land on November 11, 1914, and another portion on May 3, 1915.

The contention of appellants is that the making of said decree by the circuit court “did not have the effect of restoring the land to the public…