Home/Idaho Supreme Court/Lucky Five Mining Co. v. Central Idaho Placer Gold Mining Co.

Lucky Five Mining Co. v. Central Idaho Placer Gold Mining Co.

235 P.2d 319, 71 Idaho 490, 1951 Ida. LEXIS 311
CourtIdaho Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 26, 1951
Docket7706
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 235 P.2d 319 (Lucky Five Mining Co. v. Central Idaho Placer Gold Mining Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Idaho Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lucky Five Mining Co. v. Central Idaho Placer Gold Mining Co., 235 P.2d 319, 71 Idaho 490, 1951 Ida. LEXIS 311 (Idaho 1951).

Opinion

TAYLOR, Justice.

The appellant, plaintiff below, brought this action in 1943 to quiet its title to eight placer mining claims in Elk City and Oro-grande mining districts in Idaho County, Idaho. Due to delays, allegedly occasioned by World War II, the action did not come to trial until March 28, 1950. In the meantime, the complaint was amended to set forth a detailed metes and bounds description of two of the claims, the “Relief Placer No. 2” and “California Placer.” The amendment was made to conform the description in the pleading to amended lo *493 cation notices filed in 1947. The answer of the defendants Noon, Higgins and H. & H. Mines, a copartnership, was amended to meet the amendments of the complaint. Defendants Morgan and Sheppard filed answers and cross-complaints subsequent to the amendment of the complaint.

Following findings made, the court entered its decree quieting plaintiff’s title in all of the claims, subject, however, to leases held by the defendants Noon, Higgins and H. & H. Mines. There are two leases, both dated October 6, 1939, executed by the plaintiff as lessor in favor of W. A. Noon as lessee. Defendants plead that Noon holds these leases for the benefit of himself, Higgins and H. & H. Mines. One conveys a leasehold estate in the “Rock Pile Placer” and “Rock Pile No. 2 Placer.” The other conveys a leasehold estate in the “California,” “Idaho,” “Oregon,” and “Relief Placer No. 2.” Through error of the draftsman, the decree was drawn to include in this last mentioned lease the “Ophir Placer” and “Ophir No. 2 Placer.” This error is assigned by appellant and acknowledged by respondents.

In its findings the trial court accepted the description of seven of the claims as set out in the complaint, but refused to accept plaintiff’s description of Relief Placer No. 2. As to this claim, plaintiff’s title was quieted “as described and marked on the ground in the original location notice thereof and as described in plaintiff’s Exhibit No. 3 and as shown on H. & H. Mines’ Exhibit No. 2.

The ground described for this claim in the amendment to the complaint covers a large part of the ground described in the location notice of the “Triangle Placer Claim,” title to which was quieted in the defendants Sheppard and Noon. It is contended by defendants and cross-complainants that the land described in the original location of the Relief Placer No-. 2 does not constitute any part of the land described in the location of the Triangle Placer Claim; that is, there is actually no conflict between these two claims. While the plaintiff’s position is that a greater part of the ground covered by the Triangle Claim is included within the bounds of the Relief Placer No. 2.

The sole question presented is the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings and decree of the court quieting title to the disputed area in the defendants, Sheppard and Noon. Relief Placer No. 2 was located by J. J. Schoner, Charles For-man, W. F. Boettcher and George Satch-an, October 5, 1918. In the notice the claim is described as follows :

“The Relief Placer no. 2 cowences at this notice and discovery runing 600 feet East to North East corner stake, thance 1500 feet South to South east corner stake, thance 600 feet West to- Southwest corner stake, thance 1500 feet north to North West corner stake and place of begiwing.
*494

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

Related

Hyde v. Lawson
499 P.2d 1242 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1972)
Eagan v. Colwell
388 P.2d 999 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1964)
McNulty v. Kelly
346 P.2d 585 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1959)
Parke v. Parke
279 P.2d 631 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1955)
Lucky Five Mining Co. v. H. & H. Mines, Inc.
273 P.2d 676 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1954)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
235 P.2d 319, 71 Idaho 490, 1951 Ida. LEXIS 311, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lucky-five-mining-co-v-central-idaho-placer-gold-mining-co-idaho-1951.