Gobert

Gobert v. Butterfield

Good Law
1913 Cal. App. LEXIS 195·23 Cal. App. 1·136 P. 516
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 1, 1913Civ. No. 1111.California3,382 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Chipman, J.

Plaintiff brings the action to determine his title to a certain quartz mining claim situated in Plumas County, and alleging, among other things, that defendants had wrongfully entered upon said claim and were removing ore therefrom, and praying for an injunction to prevent the said trespass. Defendants denied plaintiff’s ownership and claimed ownership in defendant Butterfield. The controversy relates to a triangular parcel of land situated at the easterly end of the so-called Old .Harry Quartz claim, herein referred to as the Old Harry, claimed by plaintiff, and the westerly end of the so called Old Harry Extension quartz claim, hereinafter referred to as the Old Harry Extension, claimed by defendant Butterfield and under lease to defendants Shinn and Smith. The ownership of the respective claims as alleged in the pleading is not disputed except as to the small piece of land in controversy, and the question here concerns only the location of the boundary line between the two claims. This triangular piece of land is 248.7 feet wide at the northerly boundary line of the two claims, and tapers close to a common point marking the southeasterly corner of plaintiff’s claim and 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.