Colman v. Clements

Citations

• 23 Cal. 245

Syllabus

<p>In an action of ejectment to recover possession of a mining claim, where the complaint alleges in general terms that the plaintiffs are the owners of the mining ground in controversy, they are entitled to show in evidence the rules and customs of the mining district in support of this alleged ownership without averring such rules and customs in the complaint.</p> <p>The possession of one tenant in common is presumed to be the possession of all, and in order to rebut this presumption and make the possession adverse, it must be shown that the possession was with the intent to hold adversely, and such intent must be indicated by acts calculated to exclude the co-tenant.</p> <p>If written laws exist in a mining district, and the proof renders it doubtful whether they are in force, both the mining laws and parol proof of the mining customs may be offered in evidence.</p> <p>Where a forfeiture is claimed under a mining regulation or custom, this regulation or custom will be most strictly construed against the claim of forfeiture.</p> <p>A judgment recovered in ejectment against a portion of several co-tenants will not be reversed because all the co-tenants are not made parties defendant.</p>