White v. Lee
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Placer County, and from- an-order refusing a new trial. In this case the locator did not attempt to mark the boundaries of his attempted claim upon the ground. He simply posted his notice of location.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Placer County, and from- an-order refusing a new trial. In this case the locator did not attempt to mark the boundaries of his attempted claim upon the ground. He simply posted his notice of location. The description in the notice was as follows: “All of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of section 22, township 11 north, range 7 east, Mount Diablo base and meridian, situated in Pine Grove Mining District, Placer County, California.” There was no reference in the notice to the marks of the public surveys, nothing which could be…
1Opinion of the Court
Hayne, C.
Action to determine the right to a mining claim. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiffs appeal.
In 1886 the grantors of the plaintiffs located the land, marked off the boundaries, and did all the other acts required of them by law, and therefore they acquired a valid claim if there was no prior right in the grantors of the defendants. The latter posted and recorded notice of location, but failed to mark off the boundaries. The statute requires that “the location must be distinctly marked on the ground, so that its boundaries can be readily traced.” (Rev. Stats., sec. 2324.) And it is…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Anthony v. JillsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Kern Oil Co. v. CrawfordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Dripps v. the Allison's Mines Co.California Court of Appeal · 1919
- Saxton v. PerrySupreme Court of Colorado · 1910
- Temescal Oil Mining & Development Co. v. SalcidoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.