Page

California Mother Lode Mining Co. v. Page

Good Law
165 Cal. 549·1913 Cal. LEXIS 457·133 P. 14
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJune 3, 1913Sac. No. 1984.California1,859 words

Opinion

Concurring Opinion

Melvin, J.

concurring.—I concur in the judgment of reversal, but dissent from the direction to the lower court to enter judgment on the findings. I believe that the cause should be sent back for a new trial. In the above opinion this language is used: “It is perfectly apparent from a comparison of the description in the findings with that in the complaint that they both refer to the same claim, the Eagle Quartz Mining Claim in the old Indiana Ranch Mining District, Yuba County, California, and that the more particular description in the findings includes some, but not all, of the land attempted to be particularly described in the complaint.” In order to reach such a conclusion we must assume that the initial point mentioned in the findings is identical with that indicated in the description contained in the complaint, and there is nothing to show this.- In the complaint the description commences at a monument in Freegoose ravine by the arrastre owned by Higgins and Sons. The claim is described as running seven hundred and fifty feet north and seven hun dred and fifty feet south, from this point on a certain ledge or lode, and three hundred feet on either side of the center of the lode,…

Lead Opinion

Angellotti, J.

This is an appeal upon the judgment-roll alone by plaintiff from a judgment in favor of defendants.

The action was one to quiet plaintiff’s title to a certain mining claim known as the Eagle Quartz Mine and to enjoin defendants from taking valuable minerals therefrom. The complaint alleged that plaintiff was the owner of such claim, attempting to more particularly describe it, but the description, except for the name of the claim, was somewhat indefinite. It, was alleged that defendants claimed an interest therein adverse to plaintiff, that defendants were mining the same and had extracted valuable minerals therefrom, and were threatening to continue to so do, and that they were in possession of a part thereof in the southeastern portion, consisting of about three acres. Defendants answered, denying that plaintiff was the owner of all or any part of the property referred to in the complaint, denying that they had no interest therein, and denying that they had trespassed on plaintiff’s claim. They based their claim of title on a certain mining location known as the “Last Chance Mining Claim,” and admittéd that they were conducting mining operations upon such land claimed 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.