Hawley v. Romney
| Decision Date | 26 June 1926 |
| Citation | 247 P. 1069,42 Idaho 645 |
| Parties | ROY HAWLEY and G. W. McCHESNEY, Respondents, v. DANIEL ROMNEY, E. B. KING, and D. V. ARCHBOLD, Appellants |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
TRIAL-MINES AND MINERALS-GRUBSTAKE AGREEMENT-EVIDENCE-FINDINGS-COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS CONCERNING LOCATION OF MINING CLAIMS.
1. Defendants cannot assign error to denial of motion for nonsuit at conclusion of plaintiff's testimony, where following denial, defendants introduced evidence on their own behalf.
2. A grubstake agreement is properly admitted in evidence, in action to quiet title and for injunction relative to property acquired in pursuance of such agreement.
3. Engineer's plat of mining claims held properly admitted in action to quiet title and for injunction as to claims discovered in pursuance of grubstake agreement.
4. Findings that at time of location of mining claims stakes were erected and notice posted, corners properly marked, and excavation done, and claims properly filed for record, held to show compliance with United States and state law as to location of mining claims on public domain.
5. Statute requiring, as condition to valid location, discovery within limits of claim, should receive liberal construction as between conflicting claimants to mineral lands.
6. Fact that discovery points are not in center of mining claims does not invalidate them.
7. Evidence held sufficient to sustain finding of performance of statutory requirements as to development work of mining claims.
8. Trial court held to have properly adjudged plaintiffs to be owners of two-thirds interest in mining claims in accordance with grubstake agreement and subsequent agreement and location notices posted by parties.
APPEAL from the district court of the Sixth Judicial District, for Butte County. Hon. Ralph W. Adair, Judge.
Action to quiet title and for injunction. Judgment for plaintiffs. Affirmed.
Affirmed.
Peterson & Coffin, and E. G. Frawley, for Appellants.
While the courts permit a liberal construction, the liberality must be exercised within reasonable and common-sense limitations. Locations are not permitted upon a conjecture or imaginary existence of a vein.
That one joint tenant or tenant in common may not oust another from possession seems to be fundamental. (11 Pleading & Practice, 790; 23 Cyc. 490, 493; Carpentier v Webster, 27 Cal. 524; Lindley on Mines, 3d ed., sec. 788.)
Whitcomb, Cowen & Clark, for Respondents.
Where there is a conflict in the evidence, the findings and judgment of the trial court will not be disturbed on appeal when the proof is sufficient, if uncontradicted, to support it. (Choate v. North Fork High. Dist., 39 Idaho 483, 228 P. 885; Bedal v. Smith, 36 Idaho 797, 214 P. 213; Woodland v. Hodson, 35 Idaho 514, 207 P. 715; Viel v. Summers, 35 Idaho 182, 209 P. 454; Fruitland State Bank v. Lauer, 34 Idaho 272, 200 P. 127; Clifford v. Lake, 33 Idaho 77, 190 P. 714; Bafus v. Peeper, 33 Idaho 324, 194 P. 96.)
The association is practically a partnership for the location of mining property. (Lawrence v. Robinson, 4 Colo. 567; Abbott v. Smith, 3 Colo. App. 264, 32 P. 843.)
And the prospector may take no unfair advantage of his associates in dealing with the property. (2 Lindley on Mines, sec. 858; Marshall v. Niagara Springs Orchard Co., 22 Idaho 144, 125 P. 208; Sierra Blanca Min. etc. Co. v. Winchell, 35 Colo. 13, 83 P. 628; Morrison Mining Rights, 15th ed., p. 101.)
The discoveries made by Romney on the claims would inure to all three locators, as the location may be made entirely by agent.
The estate so acquired cannot be divested by making a second location leaving out the names of the original locators, so long as the first location remains valid and subsisting. (1 Lindley on Mines, sec. 331, note 7.)
The order in which the acts of location are performed is immaterial.
WM. E. LEE, J.
--Early in the year 1921, Daniel Romney, one of the appellants, and the respondents Hawley and McChesney, entered into an agreement to the effect that respondents would furnish a grubstake, a team, etc., to be used in locating and acquiring certain known mining property and Romney would locate the mining property, do the necessary development work (with certain help from respondents) and acquire the property for the three parties jointly, each to possess an undivided one-third interest. On the 6th of June respondents went on the mining ground and found that Romney had staked out certain claims in his own name. They discussed the situation with Romney and it was agreed that four mining claims, the "Blue Bird," "Winona," "Elgin" and "Fairview," should be located and acquired in the names of the three parties. They thereupon wrote out and posted on the four claims notices in the names of the three as locators, and destroyed the notices theretofore posted by Romney. Respondents left one Collins, who was in their employ, and Romney to do the development work under the direction of Romney. Collins remained on the claims for some time and, with Romney, continued to do development work until ordered off the claims by appellants. Romney later tore down the notices posted by respondents and himself. Shortly thereafter respondents destroyed the new Romney notices and posted copies of the notices they had all posted on June 6th, in the names of the three persons. Respondents on June 16th caused notices posted on the 6th day of June to be recorded, which was after certain notices of the location of this ground posted by Romney had been recorded. Respondents having been excluded from possession of the claims commenced this suit to quiet their title against appellants in and to an undivided two-thirds interest in the claims. The cause was tried in the court, who made findings of fact and conclusions of law in favor of respondents and decreed them to be the owners of an undivided interest in the four claims.
Appellants make several assignments, of error, some of which are quite general in their nature.
It is pointed out that the court erred in denying appellants' motion for nonsuit at the conclusion of plaintiff's testimony. It is a sufficient answer to this assignment to suggest that following the denial of the motion, appellants introduced evidence on their behalf. (Blackfoot City Bank v. Clements, 39 Idaho 194, 226 P. 1079; Bevercombe v. Denney & Co., 40 Idaho 34, 231 P. 427, and cases there cited.)
It is said that error was committed in admitting the grubstake agreement. No authorities are cited to this point and it is only suggested that the agreement had no relevancy or bearing on the case. The grubstake agreement was made by the parties and according to its terms respondents furnished Romney supplies and a team, as well as the services of Collins and another to do development work. It also tended to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lucky Five Min. Co. v. Central Idaho Placer Gold Min. Co.
...Group Min. Co. v. Murphy, 18 Idaho 266, 109 P. 851; Independence Placer Min. Co. v. Knauss, 32 Idaho 269, 181 P. 710; Hawley v. Romney, 42 Idaho 645, 247 P. 1069; Law v. Fowler, 45 Idaho 1, 261 P. 667; Allen v. Laudahn, 59 Idaho 207, 81 P.2d 734. See also, 30 U.S.C.A. § 28, notes 161 and 17......
-
Globe Min. Co. v. Anderson
...where it has been made in good faith, is voidable only to the extent of the excess.' To the same effect is the case of Hawley v. Romney, 42 Idaho 645, 247 P. 1069, 1071, in which the court '* * * The fact that the discovery points are not in the center of the claims would not invalidate the......