Arizona weekly journal-miner., 1898-04-27
AS THE LAW VIEWS IT.

The Celebrated Mining Case of Jordan
 and Others Against Duke
 and Others.
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
 THE TERRITORY OF ARI- IONA.
 E. E. JORDAN. E. A. JORDAN
 w. A. JoRDoN and w. $.
 HEAD,
 Appellants.
 vs. f
 JOHN DUKE, w. H. FERGu-
 SON aud G. Fl. SCHUERMAN
 Appeilees.
 Appeal from district court oI Pima county, J. D. Bethune, judgei F. E. Corbett, Herndon and Norris
 and Jno. J. Hawkins, attorneys for appellants: T. w. Johnston, W. H Barnes and Franklin E. Brooks, az torneys for appellees.
 OPINION BY STREET. J. C. The appellees, Duke and Fergu- , son, filed in the land office in Pres
 colt, Arizona, in May, 1881, an ap-
 plica;ion for patent to a certain mining claim in Verde mining dis trict. Yavspai county. Arizoua, call ed the Copper Chief" In Jniy, thereafter, appellants filed in land
 office their contest to said applica
 tion for patent to said Copper
 Chief mining claim on the ground
 that 6, l4-l00 acres of land embrsc-
 ed in Copper Chief mining claim
 was the property of appellants,
 and within the limits of a certain
 mining claim belonging 10 them
 called The Equator" Upon the
 filing of said contest the usual or der made in the land office, stop ping all further proceedings until the rights of the parties, to that portion of sad mining claim in contest, could be ascertained by a court of competent jurisdiction.
 Appellants thereafter, instituted this suit against the appeilees, Duke and Ferguson, claiming title and right of possession of 6, lI-l0O acres of land embraced within the Copper Chief mining claim, as well as within the Equator" min ing claim, as shown by the diagram accompanying this opinion. The action of appellants against appel lees is Tn the nature of a suit to l quiet title, under the provisions of paragraph 3132. Rev. Stats. Ariz: ! "An action to determine and quiet | the title of real property may be brought by any one having or claiming an interest therein, wheth- CT in or out of possession of the same, against another who claims an estate or interest adverse to him."
 To the complaint of plaintiffs, the defendants Duke & Ferguson. filed 8 general denial, and the cause proceeded to trial before a jury in the district court of Yava- pal county, where the same was in stituted. Verdict and judgment were in their favor, and from which judgment appellants prosecuted an appeal to this court and obtained reversal thereof and a new trial, upon an assignment of error, cover ing certain instructions given by the court to the jury.
 Before the cause was tried anew, it suffered a change of venue 10 Pima county, and thereupon the : defendants, Duke & Ferguson. their answer and filed ,ross-complaint setting up title to i the land in dispute, and asked that that their title be quieted against 7 .he claim of appellants. The cause was tried before a jury, and, after the plaintiff had rested his , ,ase, the defendants, Duke & Fer 7 yuson, had introduced large body z ,f their testimony, the defendant, Schuerman obtained leave of the ,ourt to De added as a party de- endant upon showing to the court hat he had succeeded to the inter a ssts of Duke & Ferguson, in and to f he Cooper Chief" mining claim. a
 The dispute to the ground in i contest arises upon pnOrity of ioca {, ion of the Copper Chief and the T Equator" mining claims respec- i lively. The ultimate facts pre- f ented to the jury upon which they t night determine the priority of q are as follows: That w. a I. Ferguson and James Riddle :, ocated a mining claim called the ii Nellie" on December 20th, 1879, ii rho also relocated the same ground ii n February 26th, 1880, because of C ome supposed defects in the loca- a ion of December, 1879, which clam, o uring the trial was, for conven- ii snce, designated as Ferguson's el Nellie:" h That one George V. Kell and tI 'obert K. Evans located the same oi round on January 2nd, 1882, and ti ave it the name of Nellie" under bl be supposilion and claim that the a, lnual expenditure or represanta- pr on work had not been done upon ii le claim of Ferguson's Nellie" in tb le year 1881. This claim was also m at the trial as Kell's cl Ferguson disregarding tV elPs "NellIe" as a valid location, in Id insisting that the annual ex- snditure on the Ferguson had not co zen done for the years 1880 and fir 'Sl, and therefore was not subject ia relocation until 1883, located of Ie Copper Chief October 18th, ar S3, which substantially covered in e ground formerly located as an "Nellie," and also locat- Te as KelPs Nellie" besides cover ad g other and more ground em- tb aced in the Equator" claim. th Duke became co-own- on with Ferguson in the Copper 1li lief" The appellants F. E. Jor- Iis ID, E. 4. Jordan and W. 4. Jor- or ID, disregarding the Copper tb, lief" location, and holding thar Ni @ location of KelPs Nellie" was a Ia, for subsisting location to the ha 'opper Chief" and claiming that an e annual expenditure had not nI, en made by Kell, and the owners sn, Kell's "Nellie," for the year 1883, avi .nt upon the ground January, lst, mn, S4, and made a location of the ev; ,qustor" claim. The defendant, bs, sad afterwards purchased an in- to est in the Equator" claim. The val ative locations of the Copper t;o Iief' and the Equator" mining Ev inns are shown on the aacomnanv