Clark v. Duval
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Fourteenth District. Suit for damages for entering upon plaintiff’s land, and constructing reservoirs and flumes, digging ditches, and diverting water. Plaintiff was in the actual possession, by inclosure, of three hundred and twenty acres of public mineral land, which he had originally taken up under the Possessory Act of 1852. The land, or a portion of it, was fit for agricultural purposes, and was used by plaintiff for raising grain and vegetables.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Fourteenth District. Suit for damages for entering upon plaintiff’s land, and constructing reservoirs and flumes, digging ditches, and diverting water. Plaintiff was in the actual possession, by inclosure, of three hundred and twenty acres of public mineral land, which he had originally taken up under the Possessory Act of 1852. The land, or a portion of it, was fit for agricultural purposes, and was used by plaintiff for raising grain and vegetables. Plaintiff lived on the land with his family, and had valuable improvements. He had, also, cut a ditch from the hill-side to…
1Opinion of the CourtBaldwin, J.
Cope, J. and Field, C. J. concurring.
The only question in this case, is as to the right of miners to go upon public lands in the occupancy of others for agricultural purposes, and use the land and water for the extraction of gold, such use being a reasonable use and necessary to the business of mining.
We think that the fact that the land was inclosed by the plaintiff, and not taken up in pursuance of the Possessory Act, unimportant. It is conceded that it was public mineral land; and the act making such land subordinate, when taken up for agricultural purposes, to the rights of miners, would…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Rogers v. SoggsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863