Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1879-09-30
A FINE ARGUMENT.
Discussion or . Point Of Aisiss
Law Between Some or she Lssd'
ing Attorneys Of the Coossock.

Atos&As'I ~
Steel ct al. vs. Gold Lead Mining Com.
pany was before the District Court,
after an adjournment Of the trial for
over q week on account Of a sick juror.
the defendant brought up the mo-
ton. previously noticed. for leave
to file a supplemental answer setting up
q nswly.acquired title to the mining
claim in controversy. alleging that 1t had
been procured OF the Jacob Little Con.
solidated direct. on the 26th instant.
whereas. one Of the titles previously set
up was under and BY virtue OF . sale oil
the premises under judgment against
that company and acquired through the
purchase at that sale.
To this the attorneys for the plaintiffs
objected. The Arguments on both sides
were sharp. critical and logical. Some
OF the points made viii Be found below.
and the calculations given were clear
and concise.
Mr.. Dickson, Of the Arm Of Lindsay
4 Dickson. made the following points;
He commended that It WAS Q wsll-estab-
lished maxim OF Law that Q grantee
could not stand in any better position
than the grantor through whom he
claimed title. The question was. there
fore, whether the Jacob Little Consoli.
dated could set up Q title which would
stand as against that Of the plaintiffs 10
this action. He argued that It could
not. The plaintiffs had applied for q
patent Of the ground in question, the
notice Of the application had been pub.
lished according to law for the period OF
sixty days and that company had failed
to file the necessary protest and to test
the case before the courts as provided by
the Act Of Congress in such case made
and provided. The Jacob Little could
not urge its title therefore as against
that Of the plaintiffs in this action. The
newly.acquired title OF the defendant
was therefore Of no avail.
Again, 1t was contendsd by the defend
ant in the supplemental answer which
was sought to be fled. that the Jacot
Little had in 1877 applied for q patent
to this same ground and the plaintiffs in
this action did not fls their requisite
protest in the land Office at Carson. But
even this. Mr.. Dickson argued. could
not avail the defendant In this case mas.
much as the Sierra Nevada did protest
and on the trial Of the oase had obtained
Judgment against the Jacob Little and
defeated its application for O patent. In
order. therefore. to render the present
answer good it should allege that there
had been no sustained opposition made
to the granting Of the patent alleged Ia
have been applied for by the Jacob Lit
tie. This was not stated and hence the
proposed supplemental answer was OF nc
account Whatever.
In answer to these arguments Judge
Lewis commended that the present case
did not differ materially from other
cases before courts. Proceedings In the
Land Office need not be set up except to
show that the Court had jurisdiction to
try the u and then all proceedings
were to DO the same a. under the com.
mon law OF the land. II the plaintiff
was in possession. o suit to quiet title
was the proper remedy. II the defend.
ant was in possession, Q suit in eject.
ment must be brought. The right OF
parties to q suit to file . supplemental
answer In such cases, setting up newly
acquired title, was well established.
The question was. then, whether this
answer did set up nsvly-acquired title.
The man who purchased property and
took o deed. had certainly color Of title
over him who had not done 30. This has
been done by the defendant, and 1t il
wished to bring this title before the
Court.
It had been alleged BY opposing coun.
sci that the plaintiffs had applied for a
patent and the defendants had fled no
protest. It did not need to protest.
This protest business worked both
ways ; and II the plaintiffs had made ap-
plicaiion for . patent, and the defend.
ant had filed nc protest, 90 bad the ia.
cob Little. through which the defendant
now claimed title. applied for q patent,
and the plaintiff had failed to protest.
II the Jacob Little was cut Of from now
setting up title against the plaintiffs, 30
we're the plaintiffs cut of from opposi.
ton to the Jacob Little's title. But
there was no necessity for the Ja.
cob Little to fls its protest against
the application Of the plaintiffs in
this action, for its application was
prior to theirs. and they could
have nothing to do With subsequent
proceedings in the case. a. they had not
entered any protest. and consequently
could not be made parties to any such
subsequent proceedings, and the plain.
tihs did not pretend TO claim title
through the Sierra Nevada. the only one
that did protest.
Mr.. Kirkpatrick. Of the firm Of Kirk.
patrick K Stephens. then took mp the
argument for the plaintiff. Parties ap.
plying for o patent to mining grounds
and those fling protests against the APP
plications were all actors, and when the
dispute between them was settled by q
court OF competent jurisdiction each
took title according to the finding Of the
court. In order that the Jacob Little
should have any title which could be set
up in this case, 1t became necessary to
show that 1t protested against the plant.
ifs application for . patent In the case
before the court. Before title through
the Jacob Little could be made available
the defendant, claiming under that com.
pany. must show that Il not only applied
for q patent to the ground In contro-
versy. but that that application had been
effectual. Suppose some q else did
protest. IL the plaintiffs did not. and the
application fell through. What thena
What title had the Jacob Little then
acquired? II should be alleged not only
that the Jacob Little applied for q
patent, but that no n protested. or.
Il there was . protest. that that protest
fell through.
Judge Lewis-Supposs the Sierra Ne
vada did protest and prevailed. still the
Jacob Little title would be good as
against you.