Ryder v. Leach
| Decision Date | 18 June 1889 |
| Docket Number | Civil 257 |
| Citation | 77 P. 490,3 Ariz. 129 |
| Parties | EMMON P. RYDER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CHARLES W. LEACH et al., Defendants and Appellees |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court of the First Judicial District in and for the County of Cochise. William H. Barnes Judge.
Affirmed.
Haynes & Mitchell, for Appellant.
Herring & Herring, and Ben Goodrich, for Appellees.
Porter J. Barnes, a. J., and Wright, C. J., concur.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Defendants had applied for a United States patent for the mineral claim known as the Boss Mine, situated in Tombstone Mining District, Cochise County.
Pending the application for patent, plaintiff filed an adverse claim in the United States land office, for a portion of the ground described in said application, and in support of such adverse claim brought this action in the district court of Cochise County.
Plaintiff alleges that he is the owner of and in possession of a certain piece of ground which he describes as the "Little Venture" Mine, and alleges that the same was located by his grantors on the second day of January, 1885.
The action was brought by plaintiff to quiet title to the aforesaid premises.
The Boss Mine was located in June, 1878, by the grantors of defendants.
No question was raised by plaintiff of the fact of a continued compliance by defendants and their grantors from the time of the location of the Boss Mine to the commencement of this action with the laws of Congress in relation to the annual expenditure of one hundred dollars upon said mine in labor and improvements.
The initial monument of the Boss Mine is fixed in the location notice of said mine, at the north end center of the Tribute Mine, thence a line runs forty-one degrees east to the western boundary line of the Sulphuret Mine.
No question is raised as to the fact that the initial monument of the Boss Mine is now at the point at the north end center of the Tribute Mine, exactly where the original location notice fixes it. Neither is any question raised that the line running north from this point terminates in the western boundary line of the Sulphuret Mine, but the contention before the court below by the plaintiff was that the point, in the western boundary line of the Sulphuret Mine, where the line terminates which is described as running "north forty-one degrees east" from the initial monument of the Boss Mine, should be determined by a magnetic course, without any allowance for the magnetic variation instead of by the true course of the meridian, and thus leave sufficient ground on the westerly side of the Boss Mine and adjoining the West Side Mine to fulfill the conditions of the Little Venture location.
If the line was a true meridian, then three hundred feet, or a very little less than that, running west along the line of the Sulphuret, will reach the point where the west side of the Northeast extension of the Sulphuret and Sulphuret touch or corner, and where the northwest corner of the Boss should be, if that was the course of the location when made.
The witness White testified that three days after the Boss location he saw a Boss monument at that point, Upton swears that he knew the Boss in 1880, and that he saw a 2 x 4 stake at that point with the word "Boss" cut in it, and saw it nearly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grant Bros. Const. Co. v. United States
... ... Green, ... 3 Ariz. 205, 73 P. 399; McCormack v. Arizona Central ... Bank, 5 Ariz. 278, 52 P. 469; Ryder v. Leach, 3 ... Ariz. 129, 77 P. 490; Brash v. White, 3 Ariz. 212, ... 73 P. 445; De Mund Lumber Co. v. Stillwell, 8 Ariz ... 1, 68 P. 543 ... ...
-
City of Bisbee v. Thomas
...to the jury after they had heard the testimony, and the verdict of the jury is conclusive, and should not be disturbed. Ryder v. Leach, 3 Ariz. 129, 77 P. 490; McGowan v. Sullivan, 5 Ariz. 334, 52 986; De Mund Lumber Co. v. Stilwell, 8 Ariz. 1, 68 P. 543; Barter v. County of Pima, 2 Ariz. 8......
-
Whittemore v. Amator
...2, 5, 315 P.2d 659, 662 (1957). We will not disturb a judgment on pure questions of fact, unless clearly erroneous. Ryder v. Leach, 3 Ariz. 129, 132, 77 P. 490, 491 (1889). Our review of the trial record discloses that there was testimony that a four-strand barbed wire fence had been in pla......
-
Mosher v. Rowe
...It is well settled that, where there is a conflict in the evidence, the judgment of the trial court will not be reversed. Ryder v. Leach, 3 Ariz. 129, 77 P. 490. these reasons this court will not disturb the findings and judgment of the lower court. McALISTER, C. J., and ROSS, J. concur. ...