Board of Education of City of Deadwood v. Mansfield

• Citation: 95 N.W. 286,17 S.D. 72
• Parties: BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF DEADWOOD et al. v. MANSFIELD et al.
• Decision Date: 03 June 1903
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

95 N.W. 286

17 S.D. 72

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CITY OF DEADWOOD et al. v. MANSFIELD et al.

Supreme Court of South Dakota

June 3, 1903

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lawrence County.

Action by the board of education of the city of Deadwood and another against John Mansfield and others. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Granville G. Bennett, for appellants. Martin & Mason, for respondents.

CORSON J.

This is an action to quiet the title to certain town lots in the city of Deadwood. It is alleged in the complaint, in substance that the plaintiff, a municipal corporation, and the county judge, are the owners in possession and entitled to the possession of certain town lots therein described, and that the defendants claim and assert some estate and interest in and to the said premises adverse to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also allege in their complaint that they claim title to the said property under and by virtue of the entry of the same as a town site in 1878, and confirmed by patent in 1886, and they pray for judgment that the title of the plaintiffs to said lots may be declared to be perfect and valid, and that the defendants and all persons claiming under them be forever barred from asserting or claiming any interest in the said property, or any part thereof. The defendants, in their answer, admit the entry of the town site of the city of Deadwood, and the issuance of the patent therefor, and that the lots in controversy are within the exterior boundary of the said town site, but deny that the said patent conveyed to or vested any title, either legal or equitable, in the plaintiffs, or either of them, to the said lots embraced or covered by those certain mining claims or locations designated and described as the "Infant Lode," the "Caroline Lode," the "Yellow Bank Extension Lode," the "General Thomas Francis Maher Lode," and the "Kalamazoo Lode," all adjoining and situated on the divide between City creek and Deadwood creek, within the corporate limits of the said city of Deadwood; that at the date of the entry for patent for the said town site of Deadwood on or about the 29th day of July 1878, and long prior thereto, and at the date of the issuance of the patent for the same on November 17, 1886, and at the time of the commencement of this action, all and each of said mining claims contained and were at said periods known to contain valuable deposits of quartz rock in place bearing gold and silver, and were at each of said dates and now are known to be valuable for mining purposes, and by reason thereof they and each of the said mining claims were, under the laws of the United States, excluded from such entry and from the grant of such patent. Defendants deny that said claims and interest of the defendants are junior or inferior to and of no validity as against the title of the plaintiffs, as alleged in their complaint, but allege that the title and interest of these defendants in and to the portions of the premises covered by and included in said mining claims are prior to any pretended right or title of the plaintiffs, or either of them, in and to the same, or any part thereof. The defendants, in their answer, by way of an affirmative defense or counterclaim, after setting out their title to the said mining claims, aver: "That each and all of said mining claims contain valuable veins and lodes bearing gold and other minerals of great richness, and the same were known to exist, were claimed, located, and worked, before and at the time the town site of Deadwood was entered for patent, at the date of the said patent, and at the time this action was commenced. That subsequent to said entry of said town site said mining claims so located prior to said entry were abandoned, and the ground became abandoned and vacant subject to relocation as abandoned mining ground." It is further alleged that the several mining claims were relocated at various dates between April, 1890, and March, 1893, and all the requirements as to such location are fully and in detail set out in the answer, and the defendants pray for judgment that their title to the said mining claims may be quieted in them as against said plaintiffs. To this answer the defendants interposed a demurrer upon the ground that said answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense or counterclaim. This demurrer was sustained, and, the defendants electing to stand upon their answer, a judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiffs, and from this judgment the defendants have appealed to this court.

For the purposes of this decision we must assume that the facts alleged in the answer are true. It will be observed that by the answer the defendants allege that they are the owners of certain mining claims located by them, their grantors, and predecessors in interest since the entry and patent of the town site, but that said mining claims were known to contain valuable deposits of gold-bearing quartz rock, and were claimed, located, worked, and held under the then existing laws prior to and at the time the town site of Deadwood was entered for patent.

The appellants contend: (1) That the answer in this case alleges that the premises in controversy were known to contain valuable deposits of gold-bearing ore before and at the time of the town site entry by the county judge, and that by reason thereof the mining claims in controversy were excluded from the town site patent. (2) That the allegations of the answer clearly show that the mining claims in controversy were located, worked, and held under the then existing laws, as such mining claims, prior to and at the time of such entry, and were, therefore, excluded from the town site patent. (3) That the answer sufficiently shows that the defendants, their grantors and predecessors in interest, complied with the mining laws, rules, and regulations in locating said mining claims.

It is insisted by the respondents: (1) That the town site patent cannot be attacked by the defendants, as their rights, if any, in the land, attached after the issuance of the patent, and that it can be assailed only in a direct proceeding by the United States. (2) That, as the defendants' alleged rights were not initiated until after the issuance of the town site patent, they are not in a position to assail that patent in this collateral proceeding on the ground that the lands embraced within the patent were known to be mineral at the time of patent.

As we have seen, the town site entry was made July 29, 1878, and the patent issued November 17, 1886. The first mining claim of the defendants was alleged to have been located April 13 1890, and the last March 7, 1893. While it is alleged in the answer that the mining lodes claimed by the defendants were located prior to the entry of the town site and the issuance of the patent therefor, defendants do not claim to have succeeded to the rights of any of the older locators, and they do not plead those former mining locations for the purpose of in any way connecting themselves therewith, but only for the purpose of showing that the land was excepted from the patent. It will be observed, therefore, that the mining claims upon which the defendants predicate their claim of title and right of possession were all located, their boundaries marked, and were recorded long subsequently to the entry of the town site and the issuance of the patent upon said...