TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Davis v. Butler

Davis v. Butler, 6 Cal. 510 (1856)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 1, 1856
Judges
Murray
Citations
6 Cal. 510
Syllabus
An abandonment of property determines the right of the party thereto from the date of the act, and the property is to him as though he had never owned or occupied it. In an action for a mining claim, when the defendant asked for an instruction to the jury “ that if the plaintiff had abandoned the claim and did not intend to return and work it before the commencement of the suit,” and the Court gave the instruction “subject to the seventeenth section of the Statute of Limitations,” Held that the qualification to the instruction was error. Abandonment may arise from a single act, or a series of acts ; and a party, having once abandoned his claim, will not be permitted to come in within the time allowed for commencing civil actions, to re-assert his right or resume his claim, to the prejudice of those who may have in the mean time appropriated it.
Summary
Appeal from the County Court, County of Amador. This was an action brought before a justice of the peace to determine the right to a mining claim, and carried by appeal to the County Court. In the Court below, the defendant asked for an instruction, which was given, subject to a qualification as set forth in the opinion of the Court. The jury found a verdict for plaintiff, and judgment was en- . tered accordingly. Defendant appealed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Murray

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Mr. Chief Justice Murray delivered the opinion of the Court.

Mr. Justice Heydenfeldt and Mr. Justice Terry concurred.

On the trial of this cause the following instruction was asked: “that if the jury found from the testimony that the plaintiff had abandoned his interest in the claim in controversy, and did not intend to return and work it before the commencement of this suit, he could not recover,” which was given with this qualification : “ subject to the seventeenth section of the Statute of Limitations, which permits an action to be brought for the recovery of personal property any time within three years.”

The qualification was erroneous; the inference of abandonment may arise from a single act, as well as from a series of acts, continued through a long space of time. It is a fact to be determined from the particular circumstances of the case. A party, after having abandoned his claim, will not be permitted to come in within the time allowed by the statute for commencing civil actions, and re-assert or resume his former interest, to the prejudice of those who may have afterwards appropriated it.

The statute was not designed to operate on such cases, giving, a man a right for a term of years in the premises against his express wishes.

The abandonment determines the right of the party from the day of *512 the act, and the property is to him as though he had never owned or occupied it.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 11 cases

View all citing references →
1858–1859: 11864–1865: 11878–1879: 11880–1881: 11890–1891: 11896–1897: 21900–1901: 21904–1905: 11914–1915: 118582026peak 1896 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. People ex rel. Madden v. Stratton28 Cal. 382 (1865) · Concurrence
  2. Derry v. Ross5 Colo. 295 (1880)
  3. Stephens v. Mansfield11 Cal. 363 (1858)
  4. Dodge v. Marden7 Or. 456 (1879)
  5. Oviatt v. Big Four Mining Co.65 P. 811 (Or. 1901)
  6. J. A. Bel Lumber Co. v. Stout64 So. 881 (La. 1914)

Most recent

  1. J. A. Bel Lumber Co. v. Stout64 So. 881 (La. 1914)
  2. Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Bradbury79 S.W. 966 (Mo. Ct. App. 1904)
  3. Oviatt v. Big Four Mining Co.65 P. 811 (Or. 1901)
  4. State ex rel. Lavin v. Bacon85 N.W. 225 (S.D. 1901)
  5. Harkrader v. Carroll76 F. 474 (D. Alaska 1896)
  6. State ex rel. Wood v. Sheldon67 N.W. 613 (S.D. 1896)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list