Myers v. Spooner

Citations

• 55 Cal. 257

Syllabus

<p>Mining Claims—Mining Rules and Regulations—Conflict of Evidence-Abandonment.— In an action of ejectment for a mining claim, in which the verdict and judgment was for the defendants, the evidence was conflicting, as to whether the plaintiffs’ claim had been staked off and surrounded by a ditch, as required by the mining rules and regulations of the district, and also as to whether the claim had been abandoned; there being, on the latter point, evidence tending to show abandonment, and the plaintiffs’ own testimony that he had not intended to abandon. Held, upon the first point, that compliance with the mining rules, in the particulars specified, was essential to the validity of the claim; and, upon the second, that the evidence of the plaintiff as to his intentions, was not conclusive, hut the intention was to bo determined from all the facts and circumstances of the case; and, the evidence being conflicting on both points, that the verdict should not he disturbed.</p> <p>Id.—Evidence — Error.—On the trial the defendants proposed to examine one of the plaintiffs, (who was a witness) as to admissions, and statements, and acts, made and done by him, before he was a tenant in common with his co-plaintiffs; to which the plaintiffs objected, and the objection was overruled. Held, that the ruling could not have injured the plaintiffs, since the record failed to show that any such question ever was, in fact, asked or answered by the witness.</p> <p>Id.— Record —Mistake —Location—Notice.— It appeared on the trial, that 1Iie District Recorder, in recording the notice of one of the defendants’ claims, omitted by mistake, one of the lines, but in fact the lines were distinctly marked on the ground, as required by the mining rules. Held, that tlie defendants were not bound by the mistake of the Recorder, and that the actual location on the ground was sufficient to impart notice to all comers.</p>