Trevaskis

Trevaskis v. Peard

Good Law
111 Cal. 599·1896 Cal. LEXIS 628·44 P. 246
Supreme Court of CaliforniaMarch 20, 1896Sac. No. 55California1,984 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Henshaw, J.

Appeals from the judgment and from the order denying a new trial.

The action was' brought under section 738 of the Code of Civil Procedure to settle conflicting claims to the land in controversy, being certain placer mining claims. Thomas Peard is the only defendant interested in this hearing. But as he appears merely as respondent, and has himself prosecuted no appeal, his attack upon certain findings and conclusions of law which he claims are unsupported or unsound cannot be considered. The objections which maybe reviewed are those alone which appellant urges.

In 1887 the lands in question were public mineral lands of the United States. Upon that date they were located by Peard and others, to whose rights Peard afterward succeeded. In this location was included about seventeen acres to the north of and adjacent to the land in controversy. The land in controversy lies in section 2, the seventeen acres in section 35. One hundred dollars worth of labor was yearly expended upon the premises by Peard until the year 1891. In 1889, however, an action was prosecuted against him to fore *601 close a miner’s lien upon his claim. The complaint sought to subject to the lien, not the land…

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.