Morgan v. Tillottson
This text of 15 P. 88 (Morgan v. Tillottson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Action of ejectment to recover mining ground constituting a placer claim.
The question of title was put in issue by the answers. The material averment of plaintiffs’ ownership and title to the possession was denied. The averment in the complaint in relation to the ownership of plaintiffs’ grantors and predecessors in interest was entirely immaterial, and need not have been denied. (Coryell v. Cain, 16 Cal. 567.)
The question whether the provision of the Revised Statutes of the United States (sec. 2324), which requires an annual expenditure of a certain amount for labor and materials on each mining claim until the patent is issued, a failure to comply with which provision renders the claim subject to relocation, we regard as settled in the affirmative by the case of Russell v. Brosseau, 65 Cal. 605, in this court, and Jackson v. Roby, 109 U. S. 440, in the Supreme Court of the United States.
These cases show clearly that judgment should have been rendered for defendants on the evidence, the whole of which was comprised in an agreed statement of facts.
[522]*522Under such circumstances, we consider it unnecessary and unjust to put the defendants to the toil and expense of a new trial.
The judgment and order are therefore reversed, and the cause remanded to the court below, with directions to enter judgment for defendants for the land in controversy.
Ordered accordingly.
Hearing in Bank denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
15 P. 88, 73 Cal. 520, 1887 Cal. LEXIS 704, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morgan-v-tillottson-cal-1887.