Skip to main content
· 4/11/1902

Eureka District Gold Mining Co. v. Ferry County

Citations

  • 28 Wash. 250
  • 68 P. 727
  • 1902 Wash. LEXIS 481

Syllabus

<p>MINES AND MINERALS • — • TAXATION DESCRIPTION 03T PROPERTY.</p> <p>A description of mining property upon the assessment list for taxation as “Eureka District Gold Mining Company, Survey 420,” cannot be regarded as too vague and uncertain for purposes of identification, where that is the description contained in the patent subsequently issued for the property, which was a group of several mining claims, but treated by its owners as a consolidated claim.</p> <p>SAME-ACTION TO ENJOIN TAX- — PLEADING.</p> <p>An allegation in the answer of defendants not denied in plaintiff’s reply, that the description of mining property employed by the assessor was the same as that contained in the patent therefor, taken in connection with evidence that the assessor procured from the land office a list of all claims for which receipt had issued and. used such description in listing plaintiff’s property, is sufficient to establish the finding that the description corresponds to that in the United States patent for the property, although patent'therefor was not in fact issued until some six months subsequent to the date of assessment.</p> <p>SAME.</p> <p>The term “Eureka District Gold Mining Company Survey” is sufficient to identify property as being the subject of a government mineral survey, when that description was applied to the survey of record in the land office and afterwards inserted in the patent, which conveyed a number of claims'as having been grouped under one survey.</p> <p>SAME-METHOD OP ASSESSMENT.</p> <p>Under Bal. Code, § 1699, which provides that the assessor shall list all property according to the largest legal subdivision, as near as practicable, unless otherwise ordered by the board of county commissioners, it was not error to list a group of mining claims as a consolidated claim, according to the government description, when no order had been made by said board directing the property to be listed by smaller legal subdivisions.</p> <p>SAME-SEGREGATION OP REAL AN

Judges: Hadley

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.