Bliss v. Kingdom
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Tenth Judicial District, County of Sierra. The complaint alleged that the plaintiffs owned back claims on Poverty Hill, Sierra' County, which were placer gold mining claims, and that the claims had no frontage on the face of the hill, and that ,the defendants owned the claims in front of and adjoining the plaintiffs’ claims; that by the local customs of miners the owners of rear claims were entitled to a right of way through the front…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Tenth Judicial District, County of Sierra. The complaint alleged that the plaintiffs owned back claims on Poverty Hill, Sierra' County, which were placer gold mining claims, and that the claims had no frontage on the face of the hill, and that ,the defendants owned the claims in front of and adjoining the plaintiffs’ claims; that by the local customs of miners the owners of rear claims were entitled to a right of way through the front claims for a cut or tunnel; that the plaintiffs had, at an expense of fifty thousand dollars, run a tunnel in the bed…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Niles, J.:
The Court erred in sustaining the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, upon the ground that the Act of April 1st, 1870 (Stats. 1869-70, p. 569), provides a remedy which the plaintiff was bound to pursue. Without entering into an unnecessary discussion of the constitutionality of this Act, it is sufficient to say that the remedy it purports to provide is merely cumulative. It is undertaken by this Act to provide means by which a party may procure a right which he would not otherwise have, but it cannot be construed to have the effect of excluding a party from…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Dutertre v. Superior Court of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Willoughby v. BrownSupreme Court of Colorado · 1878