Helm v. Chapman
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the county of Nevada. The action was brought for the foreclosure of a lien upon a mining claim, under the act “ securing liens of mechanics and others on real property.” The work performed by plaintiff consisted in quarrying and extracting quartz rock, and working in stopes and levels for the purpose of taking out rock to be crushed.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the county of Nevada. The action was brought for the foreclosure of a lien upon a mining claim, under the act “ securing liens of mechanics and others on real property.” The work performed by plaintiff consisted in quarrying and extracting quartz rock, and working in stopes and levels for the purpose of taking out rock to be crushed. The defendant, in his answer, averred that the work for which the lien was claimed was not done in the construction of any permanent structure on the premises, or in altering or repairing the same. The plaintiff…
1Opinion of the Court
The Court.
Section 1185 of the Code of Civil Procedure treats of the “ building, improvement, or structure” as separate and distinct from the land upon which it is erected or constructed. We think, without doing violence to the received meaning of language, a mine or pit sunk within a mining claim may be called a structure. Section 1188 does not, it is true, provide for a lien upon mines, but upon “ mining claims.” The lien, if it exists at all, extends to the whole claim. Strictly speaking, of course, a “ mining claim ” cannot be constructed, altered, or repaired. The intention of the law…
2Cited by23 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Reardon, Co. v. ScalesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1908
- Silvester v. Coe Quartz Mine Co.California Supreme Court · 1889
- People v. GunnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Deiner v. SutermeisterSupreme Court of Missouri · 1915
- Rakowski v. Wagoner, County JudgeSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1909
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.