Jordan v. Duke

53 P. 197, 6 Ariz. 55, 1898 Ariz. LEXIS 109
CourtArizona Supreme Court
DecidedApril 16, 1898
DocketCivil No. 579
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 53 P. 197 (Jordan v. Duke) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Arizona Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Jordan v. Duke, 53 P. 197, 6 Ariz. 55, 1898 Ariz. LEXIS 109 (Ark. 1898).

Opinion

STREET, C. J.

The appellees Duke & Ferguson filed in the land office in Prescott, Arizona, in May, 1891, an application for patent to a certain mining claim in Verde Mining District, Yavapai County, Arizona, called the “Copper Chief.” In July thereafter appellants filed in said land office their contest to said application for patent to said Copper Chief mining claim on the ground that 6.14 acres of land embraced in the Copper Chief mining claim was the property of appellants, and within the limits of a certain mining claim belonging to them called the “Equator.” Upon the filing of said contest the usual order was made in the land office, stopping all further proceedings until the rights of the parties to that portion- of said mining claim in contest could be ascertained by a court of competent jurisdiction. Appellants thereafter instituted this suit against the appellees Duke & Ferguson, claiming title and the right of possession of 6.14 acres of land embraced within the Copper Chief mining claim, as well as within the Equator mining claim, as shown by the diagram accompanying this opinion. The action by appellants against appellees is in the nature of a suit to quiet title under the provisions of paragraph 3132 of the Revised Statutes of Arizona, as amended by act No. 46 of the sixteenth legislative assembly of Arizona, approved March 17, 1891, which reads as follows: “An action to determine and quiet the title of real property may be brought by any one having or claiming an interest therein, whether in or out of possession of the same, against another who claims an estate or interest adverse to him. ’ ’

To the complaint of plaintiffs the defendants Duke & Ferguson filed a general denial, and the cause proceeded to trial before a jury in the district court of Yavapai County, where the same was instituted. Verdict and judgment were in their favor, and from which judgment appellants prosecuted an appeal to this court, and obtained a reversal thereof and a new trial upon an assignment of error, covering certain instructions given by the court to the jury. Before the cause was tried anew it suffered a change of venue to Pima County, and thereupon the defendants Duke & Ferguson amended [63]*63their answer and filed a cross-complaint setting np title to the land in dispute, and asked that their title he quieted against the claim of appellants. The cause was tried before a jury, and after the plaintiffs had rested their case, and the defendants Duke & Ferguson had introduced a large body of their testimony, the defendant Sehuerman obtained leave of the court to be added as a party defendant upon showing to the court that he had succeeded to the interests of Duke & Ferguson in and to the Copper Chief mining claim.

The dispute to the ground in contest arises upon priority of location of the Copper Chief and the Equator mining claims respectively. The ultimate facts presented to the jury upon which they might determine the priority of location are as follows: That W. H. Ferguson and James Biddle located a mining claim called the “Nellie” on December 20, 1879, who also relocated the same ground on February 26, 1880, because of some supposed defects in the location of December, 1879, which claim, during the trial, was, for convenience, designated as “Ferguson’s Nellie”; that one George Y. Kell and Robert K. Evans located the same ground on January 2, 1882, and gave it the name of “Nellie,” under the supposition and claim that the annual expenditure or representation work had not been done upon the claim of Ferguson’s Nellie in the year 1881. This claim was likewise designated at the trial as “Kell’s Nellie.” Ferguson, disregarding Kell’s Nellie as a valid location, and insisting that the annual expenditure on Ferguson’s Nellie had been made for the years 1880 and 1881, and therefore it was not subject to relocation until 1883, located the Copper Chief October 13, 1883, which substantially covered the ground formerly located as Ferguson’s Nellie, and also located as Kell’s Nellie, besides covering other and more ground embraced in the Equator claim. Afterwards Duke became the co-owner with Ferguson in the Copper Chief. The appellants F. E. Jordan, E. A. Jordan, and "W. A. Jordan, disregarding the Copper Chief location, and holding that the location of Kell’s Nellie was a prior subsisting location to the Copper Chief, and claiming that the annual expenditure had not been made by Kell and the owners of Kell’s Nellie for the year 1883, went upon the ground January 1, 1884, and made a location of the Equator claim. The defendant Head afterwards purchased an interest in the Equator claim. [64]*64The relative locations of the Copper Chief and the Equator mining claims are shown on the accompanying diagram in deep black lines:—

wiYCD6r2T0zftYANy8AWynO28TujNzjPI0nAI2LvRWMizRr5fcIQgOAqD3OLtMrXPwhnsRjHuvZFiii1rcNIzhRO

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

James Stewart Co. v. Cattany
657 P.2d 897 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1982)
Rutledge v. State
15 P.2d 255 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1932)
Hartman Gold Mining Co. v. Warning
11 P.2d 854 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1932)
Mansfield v. Southern Oregon Stages
1 P.2d 591 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1931)
Young Mines Co. v. Blackburn
196 P. 167 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1921)
Lockhart v. Farrell
86 P. 1077 (Utah Supreme Court, 1906)
Bradford v. Morrison
86 P. 6 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1906)
Willard v. Carrigan
68 P. 538 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1902)
Providence Gold Mining Co. v. Burke
57 P. 641 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1899)
Jordan v. Schuerman
53 P. 579 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1898)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
53 P. 197, 6 Ariz. 55, 1898 Ariz. LEXIS 109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jordan-v-duke-ariz-1898.