Union Mill & Mining Co. v. Warren

• Citation: 82 F. 519
• Decision Date: 13 September 1897
• Docket Number: 636.
• Parties: UNION MILL & MINING CO. v. WARREN et al. UNION MILL & MINING CO. v. WARREN, et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Nevada

82 F. 519

UNION MILL & MINING CO. v. WARREN et al.

UNION MILL & MINING CO. v. WARREN, et al.

No. 636.

United States Circuit Court, D. Nevada.

September 13, 1897

W. E F. Deal, for complainant.

Robert M. Clarke, for defendants.

HAWLEY District Judge (orally).

This is a suit in equity to quiet title to certain lands and water situate in Storey county, Nev. The amended bill alleges that complainant is 'the owner in fee, in the possession, and entitled to the possession, * * * of 320 acres of land,' particularly describing it, 'together with all the waters of Six-Mile Canon creek, flowing or to flow to, over, or through said land'; that the defendants claim an estate or interest therein adverse to complainant; that the claim of the said defendants, and each of them, is without any right whatever; that the said defendants, and each of them, has no estate, right, title, or interest whatever in said land or premises, or to said waters of said Six-Mile Canyon creek, or any part thereof; that the claim of the defendants operates as and is a cloud upon the title of complainant to said land and premises, and to the waters of said Six-Mile Canon creek and causes complainant irreparable injury, and defendants threaten to continue, and do continue, to set up and claim said title to said land and premises and to said waters adverse to complainant. To this bill the defendants interposed a demurrer, upon the following grounds:

'(1) The bill of complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (2) The bill of complaint does not show that defendants have done or caused to be done any act or thing which casts a cloud upon the title of complainant to the land described in the bill of complaint. (3) The bill of complaint does not show that complainant has ever appropriated, or is the owner of, or has any right to or use of, the water of said Six-Mile Canon Creek. (4) The bill of complaint does not show that defendants have appropriated or diverted taken, or used the waters of said Six-Mile Canon creek, or any part thereof, or in any manner deprived complainant of the same, or the use thereof. (5) The bill of complaint does not allege or show the nature of defendants' claim, or what it is that constitutes the cloud.'

This demurrer cannot be sustained. No authorities have been cited by counsel in its support. The allegations of the complaint are sufficient to constitute a cause of action to quiet title to the property in controversy. The statute of Nevada provides:

'An action may be brought by any person in possession, by himself or his tenant, of real property, against any person who claims an estate or interest therein, adverse to him, for the purpose of determining such adverse claim, estate, or interest.'

Under these provisions, of themselves clear, the supreme court of this state has repeatedly held that it is not necessary for a plaintiff to set out specifically the character of his own title, or of the alleged title of the defendants; that it is always sufficient simply to allege that plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the property, describing it, and that the defendants are unlawfully asserting a claim thereto adverse to him. The only case that lends any support whatever to the views contended for by defendants' counsel is that of Blasdel v. Williams, 9 Nev. 161 (from which I dissented), which was directly overruled in Mining Co. v. Marsano, 10 Nev. 370, 378. See, also, Golden Fleece Gold & Silver Min. Co. v. Cable Consolidated Gold & Silver Min.Co., 12 Nev. 312, 320; Rose v. Mining Co., 17 Nev. 25, 52, 27 P. 1105. Numerous state decisions, rendered under statutes similar to the statutes of this state, have held such averments in the complaint to be sufficient. Curtis v. Sutter, 15 Ca. 259, 262; Head v. Fordyce, 17 Cal. 149; Rough v. Simmons, 65 Cal. 227, 3 P. 804; Wall v. Magnes, 17 Colo. 476, 480, 30 P. 56; Amter v. Conlon, 22 Colo. 150, 43 P. 1002; Tolleston Club v. Clough (Ind.Sup.) 43 NE. 647.

In Curtis v. Sutter, Mr. Justice Field, in delivering the opinion of the court, after stating that the statute of California (from which our statute was copied) enlarges the class of cases in which equitable relief could formerly be sought in quieting title, and that it authorizes the interposition of equity in cases where previously bills of peace would not lie, said:

'Under the statute of this state, it is unnecessary for the plaintiff to delay seeking the equitable interposition of the court until he has been disturbed in his possession, by the institution of a suit against him, and until judgment in such suit has passed in his favor. It is sufficient if, whilst in the possession of the property, a party out of possession claims an estate or interest adverse to him. He can immediately, upon knowledge of the assertion of such claim, require the nature and character of the adverse estate or interest to be produced, exposed and judicially determined, and the question of title be thus forever quieted. It does not follow from the fact that the suit is brought in equity that the determination of questions purely of a legal character in relation to the title will necessarily be withdrawn from the ordinary cognizance

...