Duryea v. Boucher
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Calaveras ' County, and from an order refusing á new trial. ■ The action was brought under section 2326 of the United - States Revised Statutes to determine the right of possession to ten acres of placer mining ground, being the north half of the north . half of the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of section 13, T. 5 1ST., R. 11 E., Mount Diablo base and meridian.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Calaveras ' County, and from an order refusing á new trial. ■ The action was brought under section 2326 of the United - States Revised Statutes to determine the right of possession to ten acres of placer mining ground, being the north half of the north . half of the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of section 13, T. 5 1ST., R. 11 E., Mount Diablo base and meridian. The . plaintiffs based their right óf possession upon a location made ; in July, 1876, of a track of thirty acres. Their notice of location - described the claim as…
1Opinion of the CourtThornton, J.
We think that the location of the mining claim by plaintiffs in July, 1876, was made in accordance with law, and included the ten acres in controversy. The notice as recorded and posted was sufficient. It described the land by the adjoining tracts on the north, east, and south, and on the west by unoccupied lands. As the claim was for thirty acres, its boundary on the west could be easily determined. It makes no difference that the wrong legal subdivisions are inserted in the notice. These may be rejected as false where the remaining . description sufficiently identifies the land, in…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Maxon-Nowlin Co. v. NorswingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
- Kern Oil Co. v. CrawfordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Green v. GavinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1909
- Wheeler v. SmithWashington Supreme Court · 1893