Reilly v. Campbell

• Decision Date: 11 January 1886
• Citation: 116 U.S. 418,6 S.Ct. 421,29 L.Ed. 669
• Parties: O'REILLY and another v. CAMPBELL and others. Filed
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

6 S.Ct. 421

116 U.S. 418

29 L.Ed. 669

O'REILLY and another v. CAMPBELL and others.

Filed January 11, 1886.

J. G. Sutherland and J. R. McBride, for appellants, James J. O'Reilly and another.

S. Shellabarger and J. M. Wilson, for appellees, James W. Campbell and others.

FIELD, J.

This action was commenced in one of the district courts of Utah, and arose as follows: The defendants, the owners of mining land in that territory known as the 'Omaha Lode,' filed in 1877 a survey and plat of it in the land-office at Salt Lake City, and applied for a patent thereof under section 2325 of the Revised Statutes. The plaintiffs are the owners of adjacent mining ground known as the 'Highland Boy Lode;' and, within the prescribed time after the commencement of proceedings for a patent, they filed an adverse claim to a portion of the land covered by the defendants' survey, embracing nearly three acres. To determine the right thereto this action was instituted. The district court gave judgment in favor of the plaintiffs for the disputed premises, with the exception of a fractional part of an acre, and the supreme court of the territory affirmed the decision.

The district court found certain facts and conclusions of law upon which it based its judgment. The supreme court had before it these findings, and also, by stipulation of the parties, a statement of the evidence prepared for a motion for a new trial in the lower court. This statement is not embodied in the record, nor were any findings filed by the supreme court. Under the authority of Stringfellow v. Cain, U. S. 610, we must therefore take the findings of the lower court as adopted by the supreme court, and determine the case on their sufficiency, considered in connection with the pleadings, to support the judgment.

The objections of the appellants, for which they ask a reversal of the judgment, may be reduced to two: First, that the findings do not show that the plaintiffs are citizens of the United States; and, second, that the findings of fact are confused, insufficient, and contradictory, and also mingled with conclusions of law, instead of being separately stated as required by the statute of Utah.

It is true that the mineral lands of the United States are open to exploration and purchase only by citizens of the United States, or by those who have declared their intention to become such; and had the objection been taken in the court below that such citizenship of the plaintiffs had not been shown, it might, if not obviated, have been fatal. There is, however, nothing in the record to show that it was raised below. Proof oc citizenship, in proceedings of this kind, may consist, in the case of an individual, of his own affidavit thereof, and, in the case of an association of persons unincorporated, of the affidavit of their authorized agent, made upon his own knowledge, or upon information and belief. Rev. St. § 2321. The objection to the want of proof of that fact, if taken below, might have been met at once, if, indeed, the plaintiffs are citizens. The rule is general that an objection which might be thus met must be taken at the trial, or it will be considered as waived, except as to matters going to the jurisdiction of the court. The parties to this controversy own adjoining claims, and it is probable that the citizenship of each was known to the other, and therefore no proof on the subject was required. Be that, however, as it may, the objection in actions of this kind cannot be taken in this court for the first time.

As to the findings, it is true they are not drawn with skill or precision; they are loose and somewhat confused. Facts and conclusions of law are sometimes mingled together contrary to the dirction of the statute, creating the impression that the findings were prepared under the pressure of other duties, and did not receive the necessary care and attention. But findings are not to be construed with the strictness of special pleadings. It is sufficient if from...