Wood River times. [volume] (Hailey, Idaho) 1882-1915, 1883-06-25
ADVBRI CLAIMS,
HOW PROCEEDINGS I'D ESTABLISH
THEN MUST BR BEGUN.

4 Decision Which Fixes The status Of
tie Act II 1879 ID Reference to This
Natter Az Important Railing By
Judge Prlckett.
Madison P. Richardson ". Robert,
g. Chambers.-D.m arret to the com.
plant. MessrA Angel 4 Sullivan,
for plaintiff, MI. F. Ganahl for de.
PENDANT.
The complaint in this action is fled
in support Of al adverse claim mad,
BY the plaintiff to the application Of
the defendant for patent to . lode
mining claim situate in Mineral Hill
Mining District in this county. 1,
alleges that the plaintiff is, and ever
since the 18th day Of July, 1880, has
been the owner and in the possession
Of certain mining claim situate upon
the lands belonging to the United
States, in said district, containing
vein or lode Of quartz rock, in place,
bearing silver, lead, &c. describing
it, or attempting to do 80, by metes
aud bounds); that said mining claim
is known as the Central claim aud
contains 10 74.lOO acres; that during
all the time aforesaid plaintiff has bee"
citizen of the United States; that he
has complied with the laws of Con.
gress and Of the Territory Of Idaho
and with the mining rules and requ.
lations of the mining district, and that
he has been and is entitled to the
exclusive possession Of the Central
mining claim and every part Thereof:
That the defendant claims an estate or
interest to Is O2.1OO acres of said
premises adverse to plant e, IS part
of the Cayuga mining claim, and has
filed in the United States Land Office
at Boise City, an application under he
laws of the United States, for /. patent
for said Cayuga mining claim embrace
ing in said application above stated
part of said Central mining claim.
That said pretended Cayuga claim
was not made until on or about the
4th day of December, 1881, and was
and is founded in trespass upon the
ri2hts and possession Of the plaintiff,
and was made by defendants grantors
while The plaintiff was in the posses
sion and at work upon the Central
} mining claim, and over and upon the
surface and lode aud discovery point
thereof. That subsequent to said ap
! plication for patent and within tn,
sixty days of publication, and o,
. October 4th, 1882, and within les.
than thirty days before the commence
ment of this action, the plaintiff flee
. an adverse claim upon oath to sale
application IS provided and required
} by section 2326 of the Revised
; Statutes of the United States.
The prayer of the complaint is tina
T defendant be required to set fortl
said or any claim that he may have d
make to said Central mining claim o.
} to any estate or interest therein al
verse to plaintiff, and that all sucl
claims, estate or interest may b,
adjudged void and that plaintiff ma,
be decreed and adjudged the owne
of and in possession of said premises
and every part and parcel thereof ant
that plaintiff may have such other ant
further relief as may be just ant
equitable, and his costs.
The defendant by his counsel al
'ges two grounds of demurrer t
this complaint. First, that it doe
. not state facts sufficient to constitute
. cause of act on; and second, that
is ambiguous, u"intelligible and IN
! certain, specifying the particulars i
b which it is claimed to be 50. TIL
= question raised by this demurrer
what is the proper form of complain
Q in cases of this character?
It Morrison in his digest of the mimi
q law speaks Of ejectment as the props
acton in such cases but in my judy
It IN. mt actions to determine alver.
q claims of this character to minin
claims arc not actions of ejectmen
nor in the nature of such actions b,
cause, where, a. in this case, the plan
y tiff is in possession Of the premise