Harvey v. Ryan

Citations

• 42 Cal. 626

Syllabus

<p>“Mining Customs” as Against Written “District Mining Laws.”— In an action for possession of a mining claim, where plaintiff relied upon a location under certain written rules adopted hy the miners of the district some five years before, which did not require the posting of notices upon the claim at the time of location; and defendant offered to prove that there was a custom in the district requiring the posting of such notices; and the Court excluded the evidence on the ground that the written rules superseded any custom; held, that the exclusion of such evidence was error.</p> <p>Observed “Mining Customs” Prevail over Disregarded “District Mining Laws.”—Section six hundred and twenty-one of the Practice Act makes no distinction between the effect of a “ custom ” or “ usage,” the proof of which must rest in parol, and a “regulation” which may be adopted at a miners’ meeting and embodied in a written local law; and a custom reasonable in itself, and generally observed, will prevail as against a written mining law fallen into disuse.</p> <p>“District Mining Laws”—What Gives them Validity.—The rules adopted by the miners of a district acquire validity not from their mere enactment, but from the customary obedience and acquiescence of the miners following the enactment.</p> <p>Existence oe “District Mining Law” a Question oe Fact.—As the “mining law ” of a district must not only be established but in force, it is void whenever it falls into disuse or is generally disregarded; and the question whether it is in force at a given time is one of fact for the jury.</p>