TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Holland v. Mount Auburn Gold Quartz Mining Co.

J. L. HOLLAND and EDWIN TILLEY v. MOUNT AUBURN GOLD QUARTZ MINING COMPANY

Holland v. Mount Auburn Gold Quartz Mining Co., 53 Cal. 149 (1878)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 1, 1878
Docket
No. 5654
Citations
53 Cal. 1491878 Cal. LEXIS 99
Syllabus
Insufficient Location of Mining Claim:. —The posting of a notice upon a tree at each end of a mining claim is not a sufficient compliance with sec. 2324 of the Devised Statutes of the United States, which requires the location to ho “ distinctly marked on the ground so that its boundaries can he readily traced.”
Summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourteenth Judicial District, Nevada County. Ejectment for a quartz mining claim of fifteen hundred feet long by six hundred feet wide. The defendant had been in possession of the claim for several years, when in August, 1876, the plaintiffs attempted to relocate it, upon the assumption that the defendant had forfeited its interest in the claim by failing to do the work required by the Act of May 10, 1872, which requires work of the value of ten dollars for each one hundred feet to be done annually. The plaintiffs went upon the ground and posted the following notice upon a tree at each end of the claim: “ Notice is hereby given that we, the undersigned, have this day located and claimed fifteen hundred (1,500) feet on this quartz ledge, commencing at a white oak tree standing about fifty feet northeast of G. W. Eagon’s house, and running thence along the ledge in a southerly course for said distance, to a black oak tree which is about two feet in diameter, with top broken off, and dead on west side, and standing in an enclosure, Cleveland’s. We also locate and claim all dips, spurs, angles, and variations of said ledge for three hundred (300) feet on' each side of the ledge. The same to be known as the Como Mine. Nevada Mining District, Nevada County, California. “ Edwin Tilley, “August 25th, 1876. “J. L. Holland.” No other monuments or marks were provided by the plaintiff until after the commencement of the action, when he had the claim regularly surveyed and the boundary lines duly marked, but in the meantime the defendant had resumed work upon the claim. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed, a new trial having been denied.

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

Opinion of the Court

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

By the Court :

The defendant was in possession of the mining ground prior to the dates when the plaintiffs attempted to locate it, under the provisions of the Act of Congress of May 10, 1872.

Before the commencement of this action the location of plaintiffs was not distinctly marlced on the ground so that its boundaries could be readily traced, as required by the Act. (Rev. Stats. U. S. sec. 2324.)

Judgment and order reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.

How later courts describe this case

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

1879–1880: 11881–1882: 11891–1892: 11895–1896: 11903–1904: 21909–1910: 11933–1934: 118792026peak 1903 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Doe v. Waterloo Min. Co.70 F. 455 (9th Cir. 1895)
  2. Donahue v. Meister25 P. 1096 (Cal. 1891)
  3. Lebanon Mining Co. v. Consolidated Republican Mining Co.6 Colo. 371 (1882)
  4. Worthen v. Sidway79 S.W. 777 (Ark. 1904)
  5. Runnels v. State77 S.W. 458 (Tex. Crim. App. 1903)
  6. Gonu v. Russell3 Mont. 358 (1879)

Most recent

  1. Sarnow v. Wood20 P.2d 364 (Cal. Ct. App. 1933)
  2. Green v. Gavin101 P. 931 (Cal. Ct. App. 1909)
  3. Worthen v. Sidway79 S.W. 777 (Ark. 1904)
  4. Runnels v. State77 S.W. 458 (Tex. Crim. App. 1903)
  5. Doe v. Waterloo Min. Co.70 F. 455 (9th Cir. 1895)
  6. Donahue v. Meister25 P. 1096 (Cal. 1891)

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