Howeth v. Sullenger

Citations

• 113 Cal. 547
• 45 P. 841
• 1896 Cal. LEXIS 823

Syllabus

<p>Mining Claims—Application for Patent.—Determination of Adverse Claim—Validity of Location—Contradictory Findings.—In an action to determine an adverse claim filed in the land-office in opposition to an application for a patent, when the court found that neither of the parties were-entitled to the premises, but made specific findings from; which it appears conclusively that the claim was located by the adverse claimant in accordance with the laws of Congress, such specific finding cannot be disregarded, though in conflict with a general finding against the validity of such location, and such contradictory findings are ground for reversal of the judgment upon appeal by such adverse claimant.</p> <p>Id.—Claim not in Mining District—Marking of Boundaries.—Where a claim is not in a mining district, any marking of the boundaries so that they can be readily traced, is sufficient; and stakes and stone monuments set at each corner of the claim and in the center of each end line, with one or more notices of location sufficient for identification of the claim, is a compliance with the statute.</p> <p>Id.—Official Survey—Contraction of Claim—-Location Void Only as to Excess.—It is not material that an official survey of the claim does not correspond identically with the lines of location, since the courses and distances are only estimated by miners in making their locations, and when the location is in excess of the amount allowed by the law of Congress, the surveyor contracts the lines and draws in the monuments in conformity to the statute, the location as made by the miner being only void as to the excess.</p>