Case ID: cal-unrep_1/html/0039-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HEYDENFELDT, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JOHN FAIRBANKS, Appellant, v. WILLIAM BEAR and H. S. WOODHOUSE, Respondents.
    No. 1213;
    November 18, 1856.
    Mines and Minerals. — Mining Laws Introduced in Evidence are to be construed by the court, and tbe question whether by virtue of them a forfeiture has accrued is a question of law.
    Pleading. — After a Finding Against the Plaintiff for lack of jurisdiction of the eourt, the right remains in him to proceed in a court that has jurisdiction, and pleadings framed so as to prejudice this right are bad.
    APPEAL from Mariposa County.
    B. B. Harris and Wade & Flower for appellant; Alfred F. Washburne for respondents.
   HEYDENFELDT, J.

— The. first charge to the jury given by the eourt was clearly erroneous. Mining laws, when introduced in evidence, are to be construed by eourt, and the question whether by virtue of such laws a forfeiture had accrued is a question of law. It was therefore improper to submit it to the determination of the jury. The third instruction asked by the defendants was also improperly allowed. There was no issue under the pleadings which involved the question of the jurisdiction of the eourt, and that question ought, therefore, not to have been left to the jury. As the pleadings stand, the verdict would operate as a complete bar to any subsequent action by the plaintiff, whereas if, upon proper pleadings,- the finding against him was the result of want of jurisdiction in tbe justice of tbe peace, lie would still have his right of action in the district court.

For these reasons, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

We concur: Murray, C. J.; Terry, J.