Hanson v. Fletcher
Decision Date | 25 June 1894 |
Docket Number | 476 |
Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Parties | H. C. HANSEN AND OTHERS, APPELLANTS, v. MARK FLETCHER AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS |
APPEAL from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Hon James A. Miner, Judge.
Action by H. C. Hansen and others against Mark Fletcher and others to recover the possession and quiet the title of a mining claim, and for an injunction for trespassing upon the same. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
Messrs Lessenger & Beckwith and Messrs. Smith & Smith, for appellants.
Messrs. Evans & Rogers, for respondents.
This appeal comes to this court upon the judgment roll. It appears from the findings of fact that on the 27th day of October, 1891, the respondents made a mining location known as the "Blue Rock." The location was made by erecting a rock monument at a point upon the ground known as the "prospect hole" or "discovery shaft," by placing in the monument a notice of location, which said notice of location is as follows:
The location was made by erecting a stone monument about 3 1/2 feet high and 2 1/2 feet in diameter at the base at the prospect hole described in the notice of location, in which said notice of location above given was posted, and by erecting another stone monument, of about the same dimensions, about 340 feet, in an easterly direction, from said prospect hole, and by blazing and squaring up a pine tree about one foot in diameter and about five feet high, about 900 feet southerly from last-named monument, upon which there was plainly written, "Southeast corner of Blue Rock mine," and by squaring up a pine tree six inches in diameter and about five feet high, about 300 feet westerly from said last-named stake, and by marking on the same, "Blue Rock, south center end stake," and by erecting a rock monument, and placing a stake therein about six feet high, about 350 feet still westerly from said center end stake, on which there was marked, "Southwest corner of Blue Rock mine," and by squaring up and blazing a mahogany tree about nine inches in diameter and five feet high, around which there was piled up, about three feet high, a rock monument about 1,700 feet northerly from said southwest corner, and by marking on said tree, plainly, "Northwest corner of Blue Rock mine," and by erecting a monument of rock about 3 1/2 feet high and about 3 1/2 feet through at the base about 300 feet easterly from said last-named corner, in which there was placed a paper marked, "North center end line of Blue Rock mine," and by squaring up and blazing a quaking asp tree about six inches in diameter, and about five feet high, about 290 feet from said north end center monument, and plainly marking thereon, "Northeast corner of Blue Rock mine, 50 feet east;" and by going 50 feet east therefrom a rock monument, about three feet high and two feet at its base, was situated at the northeast corner of said Blue Rock mine, and thence running about 1,000 feet southerly to said east side monument.
At the time of said location the respondents did not intend to include within the stakes and monuments so erected more ground than 1,500 feet long by 600 feet wide. But, by an innocent mistake in pacing off the exterior boundaries, the easterly side line of the claim was in fact 1,900 feet in length, and the westerly side line was in fact 1,700 feet long; the north end line was in fact 640 feet, while the south end line was in fact 650 feet. The above notice of location was filed in the office of the recorder of Cache county, there being no mining district in the locality where said claim was discovered. Subsequently, on the 20th day of June, 1892, appellants went upon the ground described in respondents' notice of location, and saw the location notice placed in the rock monument by respondents, and read the same. It also appears from the findings that the appellants saw the stakes and monuments which marked the location of respondents; but disregarding the same, because they believed the location of respondents was void, owing to the fact that respondents had included within their stakes and monuments more than 1,500 feet in length by 600 feet in width (being a greater amount of ground than that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bismark Mountain Gold Mining Co. v. North Sunbeam Gold Co.
...Min. Co. v. Orient Min. Co. (C. C.), 6 Sawy. 299, 1 F. 522; Jackson v. Dines, 13 Colo. 90, 21 P. 918.) And it was held in Hansen v. Fletcher, 10 Utah 266, 37 P. 480, that prospect hole, rock monument, or stakes are, within the meaning of the law permanent monuments. It is the well-settled d......
-
Treadwell v. Marrs
... ... Dolly, 53 F. 333; ... Taylor v. Parenteau, 23 Colo. 368, 48 P. 505; ... Stephens v. Wood, 39 Or. 441, 65 P. 602; Hansen ... v. Fletcher, 10 Utah 266, 37 P. 480; McIntosh v. Price, ... 121 F. 716, 58 C.C.A. 136 ... Herndon ... & Norris, for Appellee ... The ... ...
-
Nicholls v. Lewis & Clark Mining Co.
... ... 579, 5 S.Ct. 1055, 29 L.Ed ... 273; Lindley on Mines, sec. 362; McIntosh v. Price, ... 121 F. 716, 58 C. C. A. 136; Hansen v. Fletcher, 10 ... Utah 266, 37 P. 480; Taylor v. Parenteau, 23 Colo ... 368, 48 P. 505; Jupiter Min. Co. v. Bodie C. M. Co ... (Cal.), 11 F. 666; Atkins ... ...
-
McPherson v. Julius
...113 Cal. 547, 45 Pac. 841; Taylor v. Parenteau, 23 Colo. 368, 48 Pac 505; Thompson v. Spray, 72 Cal. 528, 14 Pac. 182; Hansen v. Fletcher, 10 Utah 266, 37 Pac. 480. It is true there are some exceptions to the rule, but, as said by the author of the article on mines and mining in the authori......