The Goldfield news. [volume] (Goldfield, Nev.) 1904-1911, 1908-12-05
GoLDFIELD LANDLORDS AND TENANTS

A PPENDED to this article will be found the essential parts OF a decision
~ handed down by Judge oBren. affecting the relation of owner and
4 = tenant of towndte premises occupying unpatented ground, and more
especially Is related to such property vim odfed.
The owner of the ground in litigation came into possession OF title from tho
original City of Goldfeld Townste company, which had located the ground %
cred by the TOWNSHIP, as mineral placer claims The owner of the ground cor
structed buildings thereon and leased same, and the lease vas transferred from
time to time, subject to tn terns of the original lease.
Later, testimony was taken by the interior department. upon complaint of
slsuuatters", al to the validity Of the original claim locations, the contention be-
ing that the ground wa not subject tc entry as mineral ground, n o mineral exist
If the claims for which patent had ben asked as mineralg ground, and upon which
the TOWNSHIP was located, thus placing in jeopardy titles to all town property
within the boundaries of the TOWNSHIP The case RAJ appealed and is now wait
ing final adjudication.
In the meantime, however, the tenants If hi ground and buildings under
lease, claiming that the decision invahdating the mineral locations, restored the
ground to the public domain, refused to pay et % the lessor OF recognize his
title to he ground. Thereupon the lessor brought suit against the lessee or
tenant, and the cou found in favor If the lessoro owner.
This decision was enormously reported in the daily press as validating or
quieting land titles in aOldheld. The decision does not validate land titles it
merely establishes the relation between landlord and tenant upon unpatented
ground. But this is very important IN itself, for if the contention of the de-
fendant Or lessee, had been sustained, the business section of town would have
beer thrown into such confusion, that it would be confusion worsec COMPOUNDED,
for already titles ire unsettled enough. @
But ven if the Or landlord had nj title from the townste, lie would
still be in possession Of the ground as a ''squattcr', and being upon the ground,
would have rights prior to the tenant, who is a temporary occupant If thu ground,
under specific contract.
People who purchased ground from the original townsne company, need
have no fear that they can be ousted therefrom, II can be superseded in their
rights by "squatters", who subsequently took possession, provided they i'm
proved m When TN special commissioner Of the Interior Department at
washington cam here to take evidence in the TOWNSHIP matter, he assured Tho
News that owners of improved property under townsite title need not be alarmed
Or in the least disturbed, whatever the decision of the department might be in
regard to the validity of the townste entry; for II he patent to the TOWNSHIP
were allowed he townsite company would be competent to give valid title; if it
were no, allowed, then the occupants or claimants to the ground, by reason Of
their improvements thereon, would oe regarded as original locators o public To-
subsequently, coming onot the premises. could rghtfuly dipossess them
and claim prior rights. n any event, therefore, pwscssors of townsite contracts
upon improved ground, will get a title direct or indirect, from the government
and Q all car rest IS comfortably in that point as if we had government deeds
locked up in Jul vaults.
AS to unimproved ground, that is another question
ABSTRACT OF TIE DECISION