Utah Copper Co. v. Chandler

• Decision Date: 14 August 1914
• Docket Number: 2610-1
• Citation: 142 P. 1119,45 Utah 85
• Court: Utah Supreme Court
• Parties: UTAH COPPER CO. v. CHANDLER. UTAH COPPER CO. v. BINGHAM INVESTMENT CO

142 P. 1119

45 Utah 85

UTAH COPPER CO. v. CHANDLER. UTAH COPPER CO. v. BINGHAM INVESTMENT CO

Nos. 2610-1

Supreme Court of Utah

August 14, 1914

Appeal from District Court, Third District, Hon. T. D. Lewis, Judge.

Action by the Utah Copper Company against George E. Chandler and others.

Judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appeals.

AFFIRMED.

Parsons & Parsons for appellant.

W. H Bramel for respondents.

STRAUP J. McCARTY, C. J., and FRICK, J., concur.

OPINION

STRAUP, J.

There are two cases--the same plaintiff, different defendants, and different parcels of land.

The plaintiff is the owner of a mining claim in Bingham Canyon. The defendants claim parcels (town lots) of the surface ground by adverse possession; the defendant the Bingham Investment Company a parcel about 23x30 feet, a part of a lot in the town of Bingham Canyon, and upon which is erected and maintained a dwelling house; the defendant Chandler a parcel about 26x50 feet, upon which is erected and maintained a hall.

The cases were tried to the court upon agreed statements of fact. These the court adopted as its findings, and upon them rendered judgment in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff appeals. The cases are submitted together. They turn on the question of the payment of taxes.

Our statute (Comp. Laws 1907, section 2866) provides:

"In no case shall adverse possession be considered established under the provisions of any section of this Code, unless it shall be shown that the land has been occupied and claimed for the period of seven years continuously, and the party or persons, their predecessors, and grantors have paid all taxes which have been levied and assessed upon such land according to law."

The plaintiff contends that it, and not the defendants, paid all the taxes lawfully levied and assessed against the premises in dispute. The agreed statements show that the plaintiff paid all the taxes levied and assessed on the mining claim under section 2504, R. S. 1898, and amendments thereto, a tax levied on mines and mining claims at a valuation of five dollars per acre, the price paid to the Government, and that there was no assessment or taxation against the plaintiff on the lots or the improvements thereof; it paid no such or any tax on any part of the surface ground, other than as assessed against the claim itself under the section mentioned. The agreed statements further recite that the defendants and their grantors paid all the taxes assessed to them or in their names and all the taxes supposed to be on the lots and premises in question; but that the lots and improvements thereon were not "by the assessment roll or tax records described with sufficient certainty to identify the same." They further recite:

"It is agreed that the assessments upon the Mirror Lode Mining Claim and those solely upon the premises constituting the subject-matter of this controversy, if the latter be found to have been made according to law, shall in no manner be regarded as double assessments, but, on the contrary, each assessment shall be in itself a separate and distinct assessment, cumulative rather than double. All right of either party to avail themselves of any issue or issues that might be raised on the ground of a double assessment is hereby waived."

The statements in some respects are uncertain and ambiguous, but the fair meaning deduced from them is that the mining claim itself was assessed to the plaintiff, and that it paid all such taxes; that the lots and improvements thereon were assessed separately from and independently of the mining claim, but the descriptions thereof were not sufficiently certain to identify them, but whatever taxes were so levied and assessed were paid by the defendants.

Section 2504, supra, provides that all mines and mining claims shall be taxed at the price paid the United States therefor, unless the surface ground, or some part thereof, of such mine or claim is used for other than mining...