Dye v. Duncan, Dieckman & Duncan Mining Co.
| Decision Date | 06 August 1958 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. 1354. |
| Citation | 164 F. Supp. 747 |
| Parties | Mrs. Crete DYE, Plaintiff, v. DUNCAN, DIECKMAN & DUNCAN MINING CO., Inc.; Donald S. Duncan and wife, Mrs. Donald S. Duncan; J. R. Wood and wife, Mrs. Lola Wood; W. H. (Bill) Hargus and wife, Mrs. W. H. Hargus; Bill Hargus and wife, Mrs. Bill Hargus; Luke Lawrence; Charles W. Ratliff and wife, Mrs. Susie Ratliff; J. D. Hillard; W. B. Price and wife, Mrs. Pauline Price; J. F. Grant and wife, Mrs. Clara Grant; S. W. Chapman and wife, Mrs. Christine K. Chapman; Mr. and Mrs. Howard House, Defendants, O. A. Logan, Cross-Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Arkansas |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Dobbs, Pryor & Dobbs, Ft. Smith, Ark., Nabors Shaw, Mena, Ark., for Duncan, Dieckman & Duncan Mining Co. and Donald S. Duncan and wife.
Bethell & Pearce, Ft. Smith, Ark., for W. H. Hargus and wife, Charles W. Ratliff and wife, J. D. Hillard.
Collins, Edwards, Core & Collins, DeQueen, Ark., for Luke Lawrence, J. R. Wood and wife.
Shaver, Tackett & Jones, Texarkana, Ark., for S. W. Chapman and wife.
Kenyon F. Lee, Los Angeles, Cal., John E. Harris, Ft. Smith, Ark., Jerry C. Witt, Mount Ida, Ark., for plaintiff.
This is a mining case involving conflicting claims of four sets of parties. Each party contends that his or her claims are valid and have been "jumped" by the opposing parties.
After the filing of numerous pleadings and motions, the case finally progressed to trial on May 12, 1958. The trial proceeded until May 16, 1958, when it became necessary for the Court to postpone further proceedings until June 16, 1958. The trial was resumed on June 16, and was finally concluded on June 18, 1958. At the conclusion of the trial the Court took the case under advisement. On June 25, 1958, the defendants, J. R. and Lola Wood and Luke Lawrence, filed a motion to re-open the evidence for the limited purpose of introducing a photostatic copy of Exhibit No. 24, which was placed in evidence by plaintiff during the trial of the case. The Court granted the motion, and the photostatic copy of the exhibit (as it appeared when presented to the drawee bank) has now been received and is a part of the evidence.
Briefs were filed by the parties in support of their contentions, and the Court, having considered the pleadings, evidence, and briefs of the parties, makes and files herein its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, separately stated.
The plaintiff, Mrs. Crete Dye, is a citizen and resident of the State of California. All of the defendants are citizens and residents of the Fort Smith Division of the Western District of Arkansas. The amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds the sum of $3,000.
The nature of the case makes the dates of various instruments and activities of particular importance, and for that reason the Court will attempt to state most of its Findings of Fact in chronological order.
In June of 1951, Archie B. Pickell (plaintiff's predecessor in title) discovered a lode of manganese ore extending in an east-west direction across Section 36 and part of Section 35 of Township 3 South, Range 28 West, in Polk County, Arkansas. (Section 35 is adjacent to and directly west of Section 36.) He employed several men to assist him in exploring and ascertaining the extent and value of the ore.
Pickell decided to locate certain claims in Sections 35 and 36, and employed men to mark the boundaries, blaze trees, brush the lines, place rock monuments at the corners of the claims, and place location notices on the claims. In this manner Pickell located his claims 12 to 19, inclusive, and on May 7 and 8, 1952, he filed location notices in the office of the Circuit Clerk and Recorder of Polk County, Arkansas. The location notice of Pickell's claim No. 12 provides that it is located Pickell's claims 13, 14, 15, and 16 were adjacent to claim 12 and to each other and were located west of claim 12. In other words, Pickell's claims 12 to 16, inclusive, ran from the center of Section 36 in a westerly direction through the west half of Section 36 and most of Section 35. Claim 12 was located entirely in Section 36; claim 13 mostly in 36 but partly in 35; claims 14, 15, and 16 entirely in 35. All the claims were 600 feet wide north and south, and 1,500 feet long east and west. Pickell's claim 17 was directly north of and adjacent to claim 16; claim 18 was directly north of and adjacent to claim 15; and claim 19 was directly north of and adjacent to claim 14. Claims 17, 18, and 19 were entirely in Section 35 and were each 600 feet wide north and south, and 1,500 feet long east and west.
Shortly after the notices were filed, Pickell's employees began surveying the claims and doing additional work marking the boundaries, brushing the lines, and posting notices. Pickell's employees did a substantial amount of discovery and assessment work on the eight claims.
Pickell was of the opinion that the vein or lode of ore was in the center of his claim No. 12 and was 300 feet north of the center of Section 36. He was positive in his testimony that the south line of his claim 12 was on the east-west center line of Section 36.
On June 30, 1953, Pickell filed an affidavit of assessment work, stating that he had paid $18,597 "for assessment and development work on my Mining Claims Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 in Sections 35 and 36, Twp. 3 S., Range 28 W.; Also Claims Nos. 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 in Sections 7, 8 and 9, Twp. 4 S., R. 29 W.; Also Claim No. 1 in Sec. 11, Twp. 3 S., R. 30 W. This work consists of road building, pit excavations, and machine installations, and was done between July 1, 1952, and June 30, 1953."
Pickell's employees did in fact do assessment work of a reasonable value of $100 for each of the claims 12 to 19, inclusive, for the assessment year ending July 1, 1953, at 12 o'clock meridian.
In the fall of 1953 the defendant, Charles W. Ratliff, was hunting in Sections 35 and 36 and discovered some manganese ore. He took no action concerning the ore at that time but merely noted its presence.
During the latter part of 1953 Pickell had one road built extending toward his eight claims. However, the road was not built completely up to the area of the claims.
In the spring of 1954 Pickell continued to employ workers to perform discovery and assessment work on his eight claims. The assessment work done by his employees had a reasonable value in excess of $100 per claim for the assessment year ending July 1, 1954, at 12 o'clock meridian.
On May 10, 1954, Pickell and his wife, by quitclaim deed, conveyed his claims 12 to 19, inclusive, to his son-in-law, W. B. Alexander.
Also during the spring of 1954 Charles W. Ratliff, J. D. Hillard, and John M. Walker made investigations in Sections 35 and 36 where Ratliff had noticed the ore the year before. As a result of their investigations they located four claims and filed location notices on May 17, 1954. Claim No. 1 located by Ratliff, with Hillard and Walker as witnesses, began at the northeast corner of the SE¼ of the NW¼ of Section 36, Township 3 South, Range 28 West, in Polk County, Arkansas, and then ran 1,500 feet west, 600 feet south, 1,500 feet east, and 600 feet north to place of beginning. Claim No. 2, located by Walker, with Hillard and Ratliff as witnesses, was adjacent to and west of Claim No. 1. It was 600 feet wide north and south, and 1,500 feet long east and west. Claims Nos. 3 and 4, located by Hillard, with Walker and Ratliff as witnesses, were located directly south of and adjacent to claims 1 and 2 above mentioned. Claim 3 was directly south of claim 1, and claim 4 was directly south of claim 2.
On July 1, 1954, W. B. Alexander filed mining claim location notices on claims 12 to 19, inclusive. These notices covered exactly the same territory covered by Pickell's notices. Alexander was never on the particular claims and executed the notices at the request of Pickell. It was not completely clear from the evidence for what purpose the notices were filed.
In the fall of 1954 Pickell continued to employ men to do discovery and assessment work on claims 12 to 19, inclusive, on behalf of Alexander.
On December 3, 1954, Warren B. Alexander and wife leased claims 12 to 19, inclusive, to O. A. Logan. Logan mined in the area for about two weeks.
On January 12, 1955, the defendants, J. R. Wood and Luke Lawrence, filed location notices covering their claims 1 to 6, inclusive. Wood and Lawrence claim No. 1 began at the quarter section corner on the east side of Section 36 and ran north 300 feet, west 1,500 feet, south 600 feet, east 1,500 feet, and north 300 feet to place of beginning. Their claims 2, 3, and 4 were adjacent to claim 1 and to each other and lay west of claim 1. Claims 1, 2, 3, and 4 were each 600 feet wide north and south and 1,500 feet long east and west. The four claims extended across the center of Section 36 and partly into Section 35. Wood and Lawrence claim 5 was directly north of their claim 3 and was located in Section 36. Their claim 6 was directly north of claim 4, and was partly in Section 36 and partly in Section 35. Prior to filing the notices Wood and Lawrence had discovered the vein of ore, had laid out and marked the boundaries of their claims 1 to 6, inclusive, and had posted notices.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
CHAPTER 2 CHARACTER OF THE LABOR OR IMPROVEMENTS
...[58] See, e.g., United States v. 9947.71 Acres of Land, 220 F. Supp. 328 (D. Nev. 1963); Dye v. Duncan, Dieckman & Duncan Mining Co., 164 F. Supp. 747 (W.D. Ark. 1958); Denman v. Smith, 14 Cal. 2d 752, 97 P.2d 451 (1939); Pepperdine v. Keys, 198 Cal. App. 2d 25, 17 Cal. Rptr. 709 (1962); Li......