Morgan v. Tillottson
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Placer County, and from an order refusing a new trial. The action was brought to recover the possession of a certain placer mining claim. In 1855, the predecessors in interest of the plaintiffs located the claim in controversy, and from that year up to the 31st of December, 1883, continued in the possession thereof, working and developing the same.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Placer County, and from an order refusing a new trial. The action was brought to recover the possession of a certain placer mining claim. In 1855, the predecessors in interest of the plaintiffs located the claim in controversy, and from that year up to the 31st of December, 1883, continued in the possession thereof, working and developing the same. Previous to the commencement of this action, the plaintiffs succeeded by mesne conveyances to the rights of the original locators. In the year 1884, the plaintiffs and their grantors only expended the…
1Opinion of the CourtThornton, J.
Action of ejectment to recover mining ground constituting a placer claim.
The question of title was put in issue by the answers. The material averment of plaintiffs’ ownership and title to the possession was denied. The averment in the complaint in relation to the ownership of plaintiffs’ grantors and predecessors in interest was entirely immaterial, and need not have been denied. (Coryell v. Cain, 16 Cal. 567.)
The question whether the provision of the Revised Statutes of the United States (sec. 2324), which requires an annual expenditure of a certain amount for labor and materials on each…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Coryell v. CainCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- Jackson v. RobySupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Russell v. BrosseauCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
3Cited by4 opinions
- Lockhart v. RollinsIdaho Supreme Court · 1889
- Anthony v. JillsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Bigelow v. San Juan Gold Co.California Court of Appeal · 1944
- Fee v. DurhamCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1903