Eli Min. & Land Co. v. Carleton

• Decision Date: 10 April 1901
• Docket Number: 1,472
• Citation: 108 F. 24
• Parties: ELI MINING & LAND CO. et al. v. CARLETON.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

108 F. 24

ELI MINING & LAND CO. et al. v. CARLETON.

No. 1,472

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

April 10, 1901

Joel F Vaile and John A. Ewing (Edward O. Wolcott and William W Field, on the brief), for plaintiffs in error.

W. H Bryant (C. S. Thomas and H. H. Lee, on the brief), for defendant in error.

Before CALDWELL, SANBORN, and THAYER, Circuit Judges.

CALDWELL Circuit Judge.

This action was brought by the Eli Mining & Land Company, a Colorado Corporation, A. D. Searl, Mrs. F. C. Schroeder, Nellie M. Schroeder, A. S. Schroeder, John W. Schroeder, Mrs. Dora Ehlers, Mrs. Maria Dunhore, A. F. Britton, and H. J. Gray, plaintiffs in error, against S. L. Carleton, the defendant in error, to recover the possession of an alleged placer-mining claim in the California mining district, in Lake county, Colo. By written stipulation of the parties a jury was waived, and the cause tried before the court. After hearing the evidence and arguments of counsel the court announced its conclusions in the case in the following terms:

'RINER, J.

Case No. 3,846, argued yesterday. In my judgment, the evidence in this case does not show that the ground in controversy is placer ground. I think, too, the good faith of the parties making the placer location, and their grantees, may well be doubted. The location was made twenty-three years ago, and no effort has been made by them to develop and work the claim as a placer. Neither is it established as a fact by the testimony that the necessary assessment work has been performed. The views just expressed seem to be in harmony with the findings of the land department, but, if it were otherwise, it could make no difference, as the findings of that department must be held to be conclusive upon the questions of fact; that is to say, as to the character of the land, etc. A judgment will be entered in favor of the defendants.'

Whether these utterances of the court are treated merely as the opinion of the court, or as a general or a special finding of facts, they present nothing for the consideration of this court. They at least constitute a sufficient general finding in favor of the defendant. The fact is found that the ground in controversy is not placer-mining ground, and this finding is fatal to the plaintiff's case. The principal error assigned is that the findings of the court are not supported by the evidence. But, when a common-law action is tried to the court, its findings of fact are conclusive on this court; and, if the facts found are sufficient in law to support the judgment, it must stand, unless the court erred in the trial of the case in admitting or rejecting evidence over the objection of the complaining party. Hill v. Woodberry, 49 F. 138, 1 C.C.A. 206, 4 U.S.App. 68; Trust Co. v. Wood, 8 C.C.A. 658, 60 F. 346; Searcy Co. v. Thompson, 13 C.C.A. 349, 66 F. 92; Hughes Co. v. Livingston, 43 C.C.A. 541, 104 F. 306; British Queen Min. Co. v. Baker Silver-Min. Co., 138 U.S. 222, 11 Sup.Ct. 523, 35, L.Ed. 147.

Four errors are assigned, based on objections to questions propounded to witnesses by the defendant: On cross-examination the defendant asked a witness, 'Would you, as a placer miner, undertake to work that ground and make it pay as a placer mine? ' To this question the plaintiffs interposed in the lower court the objection that the question was 'immaterial' only, which, as we have often held is tantamount to no objection at all. Insurance Co. v. Miller, 8 C.C.A. 612, 60 F. 254 256; Railroad Co. v. Hall, 14 C.C.A. 153, 66 F. 868, 870; Equipment Co. v. Blair, 25 C.C.A. 216, 79 F. 896; U.S. v....