Horswell v. Ruiz
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, and from an order refusing a new trial. The action was brought to recover the possession of a mining claim, and for an injunction to restrain the defendants from extracting and removing the ore therefrom. The plaintiffs based their right of possession upon a location made on May 8, 1884. At that date the land in controversy was in the occupation of the defendants, who were engaged in working it.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, and from an order refusing a new trial. The action was brought to recover the possession of a mining claim, and for an injunction to restrain the defendants from extracting and removing the ore therefrom. The plaintiffs based their right of possession upon a location made on May 8, 1884. At that date the land in controversy was in the occupation of the defendants, who were engaged in working it. The further facts appear in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtSharpstein, J.
The instructions given at the request , of the defendants in some instances contradict those which were given at the request of the plaintiffs. For example, one instruction, given at plaintiffs’ request, reads: “You are instructed that if a party goes upon the mineral lands of the United States and works thereon, without complying with the requirements of any law, either federal, district, or local customs, and relies exclusively on his possession or work; and a second party locates peaceably a mining claim covering the same ground, and in all respects complies with the requirements of the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Belk v. MeagherSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Eureka Consol. Min. Co. v. Richmond Min. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada · 1877
- Hopkins v. NoyesMontana Supreme Court · 1883
- Morenhaut v. WilsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1877
- McCormick v. VarnesUtah Supreme Court · 1880
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Olive Land & Development Co. v. OlmsteadU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern California · 1900
- Veale v. PiercyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
- Consolidated Mut. Oil Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1917
- Cook v. KlonosCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1908
- Hanson v. CraigCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1909
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.