Tartar

Tartar v. Spring Creek Water & Mining Co.

Good Law
5 Cal. 395
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 1, 1855California761 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Heydenfeldt, J.

Murray, C. J., concurred.

The current of decisions of this Court go to establish, that the policy of this State, as derived from her legislation, is to permit settlers, in all capacities, to occupy the public lands, and by such occupation, to acquire the right of undisturbed enjoyment against all the world but the true owner.

In evidence of this, Acts have been passed to protect the possession of agricultural lands acquired by mere occupancy; to license miners; to provide for the recovery of mining claims; recognizing canals and ditches which were known to divert the water of streams from their natural channels, for mining purposes; and others, of like character.

This policy has been extended equally to all pursuits, and no partiality for one over another has been evinced, except in the single case *398 where the rights of the agriculturist are made to yield to those of the miner, where gold is discovered in his land. This exceptional privilege is of course confined to public lands, as we held in Stokes v. Barrett and others, at the last January Term. The policy of the exception is obvious. Without it, the entire gold region might have been enclosed in large tracts, under 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.