Poncia v. Eagle

• Decision Date: 09 October 1915
• Citation: 152 P. 208,28 Idaho 60
• Parties: C. R. PONCIA et al., Appellants, v. J. FREDERICK EAGLE and MCCREADY SYKES, Respondents
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

152 P. 208

28 Idaho 60

C. R. PONCIA et al., Appellants, v. J. FREDERICK EAGLE and MCCREADY SYKES, Respondents

Supreme Court of Idaho

October 9, 1915

COMPLAINT-DEMURRER-CAUSE OF ACTION-ACTION TO QUIET TITLE-NOT ADVERSE SUIT UNDER SECS 2325, 2326, U.S. STATUTES-FORM OF COMPLAINT-TECHNICALITIES.

1. Held, that this is an action to quiet the possession and title in the plaintiffs to certain mining ground as against the claims of the defendants.

2. Held, that this is not an action on an adverse claim, under the provisions of secs. 2325, 2326, U.S. Rev. Stats.

3. Under the provisions of sec. 1, art. 5, of the state constitution, the distinction between actions at law and suits in equity and the forms of all such actions is prohibited, and there is in this state but one form of action for the enforcement or protection of private rights or the redress of private wrongs.

4. Under the provisions of sec. 4168, Rev. Codes, no particular form of complaint is required, but a statement of the facts constituting the cause of action in ordinary and concise language is sufficient, and the plaintiff cannot be sent out of court only when upon the facts pleaded he is entitled to no relief either at law or in equity.

[As to equitable suit for removing cloud from title, see note in 45 Am.St. 373]

APPEAL from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, in and for Boise County. Hon. Charles P. McCarthy, Judge.

Action to quiet title to certain mining ground. Judgment for defendants. Reversed.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded, with direction. Costs awarded to the appellants.

O. R Woods and M. M. Myers, for Appellant.

This is an action to quiet title to mining ground, and should be treated as such, without regard to the patent regulations of the United States and without regard to the proceedings in the United States land office. The plaintiffs claim title by virtue of their locations, and by virtue of owning and being in possession of and working said claims for the last five years next before commencement of their action. (Bradley v. Johnson, 11 Idaho 689, 83 P. 927; Jones v Pacific Dredging Co., 9 Idaho 186, 72 P. 956; Lavagnino v. Uhlig, 26 Utah 1, 99 Am. St. 808, 71 P. 1046.)

An action in a state court to quiet title to mining lands is not an action under the Revised Statutes of the United States, sec. 2326, to determine which of the parties is best entitled to purchase from the United States. (Altoona Quicksilver Min. Co. v. Integral Quicksilver Co., 114 Cal. 100, 45 P. 1047.)

It matters not whether the suit was commenced within thirty days. It does not matter to the state court whether its judgment can be available in the land office or not. ( Quigley v. Gillett, 101 Cal. 462, 35 P. 1040; Risch v. Wiseman, 36 Ore. 484, 78 Am. St. 783, 59 P. 1111; Murray v. Polyglase, 23 Mont. 401, 59 P. 439; Gruwell v. Rocca, 141 Cal. 417, 74 P. 1028.)

Hawley & Hawley, O. W. Worthwine and S. S. Griffin, for Respondents.

This is an adverse suit brought under sec. 2326, Rev. Stats. of the United States, and is governed by the law applicable to such suits. (Hunt v. Eureka Gulch Min. Co., 14 Colo. 451, 24 P. 550, at 551; Lily Mining Co. v. Kellogg, 27 Utah 111, 74 P. 518; Burke v. McDonald, 2 Idaho 339 (310), 13 P. 351.)

In adverse proceedings each party is practically plaintiff and must show his title. (Brown v. Gurney, 201 U.S. 184, 26 S.Ct. 509, 50 L.Ed. 717; Jackson v. Roby, 109 U.S. 440, 3 S.Ct. 301, 27 L.Ed. 990; Perego v. Dodge, 163 U.S. 160, 16 S.Ct. 970, 41 L.Ed. 113.)

The amended complaint shows that this action was not commenced in the time required by the laws of the United States. (3 Lindley on Mines, 3d ed., p. 1851, and cases cited; Holman v. Central Montana Mines Co., 34 L. D. 568; Madison Placer Claim, 35 L. D. 551; Warnekros v. Cowan, 13 Ariz. 42, 108 P. 238.)

The fact that respondents had some sort of agreement with the appellants in regard to this suit can have no effect in extending the time. (Gustavus Hagland, 1 L. D. 591. Independence Lode, 9 L. D. 571.)

SULLIVAN, C. J. Budge and Morgan, JJ., concur.

OPINION

SULLIVAN, C. J.

This is an action to quiet title to a certain mining claim known as the "Midnight" claim, situated in Centerville and Pioneerville Mining Districts, Boise county.

A demurrer was sustained to the amended complaint and the plaintiffs declined to plead further, and thereupon judgment of dismissal was entered. This appeal is from that judgment.

The following facts appear from the complaint.

On or about March 23, 1910, the respondents herein filed an application for a United States patent for a group of placer mining claims, called the "Dessie D" group, situated in Centerville and Pioneerville, Boise county. One of said group was named by the respondents the "Midnight" placer claim, and this claim embraced the placer mining ground described in the complaint and claimed by the plaintiffs. Said application for a patent was filed in the Boise land office and notice of such application was published in a newspaper and such publication continued in such paper for a period of sixty days and said period ended on May 27, 1910. The appellants herein filed protest and adverse claim in said land office on May 23, 1910, which was within the sixty-day period of publication, and also commenced a suit in the district court of the third judicial district in and for the said county on June 18, 1910, to quiet title to the placer ground included within the boundaries of said "Midnight" placer claim, and on September 22, that action was transferred to the United States circuit court for the district of Idaho. On April 27, 1913, that action was dismissed by the federal court.

The plaintiffs had employed William A. Sample, Esq., as their attorney, to represent them in their adverse claim, and in their said action to quiet title thereto. Sample died on or about the 25th of December, 1912, but during his life he informed the plaintiffs that their said case in the land office and in the federal court had been compromised in such a way that the said "Dessie D" group of claims would go to patent, except or excluding the "Midnight" claim, and the plaintiffs would retain their ownership of said ground.

Thereafter and during the month of March, 1914, a receiver's receipt was issued to the defendants which would entitle them to a United States patent to the whole of said "Dessie D" group of placer claims, including said "Midnight" claim. Upon being informed of those facts, plaintiffs at once employed O. R. Woods, Esq., an attorney at law, to file anew their protest and adverse claim against the issuing of a patent to said group of claims so far as the same conflicted with plaintiffs' claim. Thereupon said attorney made application to the commissioner of the general land office at Washington, D. C., for permission to file anew the protest and adverse claims of plaintiffs and obtained permission to file a protest under oath, stating the reason why patent should not issue in that case, which protest was made and transmitted from the Boise land office to the general land office at Washington, D. C., and on April 28, 1914, the plaintiffs began this suit to quiet title and thereafter filed an amended complaint, setting forth more fully the alleged facts of the case. To this amended complaint a demurrer was filed, which demurrer was sustained, and as above stated, the court entered judgment of dismissal.

The sustaining of said demurrer and entering judgment of dismissal are assigned as error.

This is not a case where the plaintiffs are seeking to acquire a patent from the United States to the mining ground in controversy under their adverse claim or protest. The defendants only are applicants for a patent--not the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claim title and right to the possession of this land as against the respondents by virtue of their locations and by virtue of being in possession and of working said claims for the last five years next before the commencement of this action, alleging that their possession has been actual, quiet, peaceable, adverse visible, notorious,...