Darger v. Le Sieur
Utah Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the district court of the first district and from an order refusing a new trial. The defendant’s answer denied the ouster and denied that he had ever entered into the possession of the property described in the complaint, or that he ever withheld the possession thereof from the plaintiffs.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the district court of the first district and from an order refusing a new trial. The defendant’s answer denied the ouster and denied that he had ever entered into the possession of the property described in the complaint, or that he ever withheld the possession thereof from the plaintiffs. The charge of the court to the jury was as follows: “Under the proof in this case, the only question to be submitted to the jury is, whether the defendant is in possession or is making any claim to the property of these plaintiffs. The defendant denies possession. If he is not in…
1Opinion of the Court
ANDERSON, J.:
The plaintiffs brought this action against the defendant to recover the possession of six mining claims. The complaint alleged that the plaintiffs discovered mineral in place in each of .the claims, and made the locations in June, 1888; that they erected a monument on each claim near the point of discovery, and placed thereon a notice of location, giving date of location, names of locations, description of the claim, and the names of the locators; that measurements were made in accordance with the notice and posts erected at each corner, as required by law; that in July, 1888, a…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Morrison v. ReganIdaho Supreme Court · 1902
- Wilson v. Triumph Consolidated Mining Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1899
- Henderson v. TurngrenUtah Supreme Court · 1894
- Brown v. LevanIdaho Supreme Court · 1896
- Dennis v. BarnettCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.