Amador ledger., 1909-09-17

port
Castro VS.. Tennent, A Cal, 258.
Extrinsic evidence is incapable of re-
moving a patent ambiguity in the des-
cription of deed, and a suit in eject
ment founded on such deed must fail.
The title should be first perfected by an
action brought for the reformation of the
deed
2 Devlin"on Deeds sec. l0l.
This deed from Christensen however
contained a descriptive name, the prem.
Uses conveyed being referred to as "the
Cleveland Consolidated Placer mine, y
and the deed was admitted in evidence
subject to the right of defendants to
prove by other testimony that the twenty
acres in dispute was known by such
descriptive name.
When property has a descriptive name
it may be conveyed by that name.
Sec. 1902 Civil Code.
And defects in other part of description
may be disregarded
Hartin vs. Lloyd, "a Cal, 1876
And evidence that it was generally
known and spoken of by such name is
received.
Murray S. Tulare Irrigation Co, 100
CAL, 3l5.
Carter VS.. Bacigalupi, 80 CAL, 1873
Hill VS. Ho Coy, Cal, app. 1863.
There was oral testimony bya number
of witnesses at the trial showing that
the twenty acres in dispute was known
as The Cleveland Consolidated Placer
Nine
Witnesses for plaintiffs however testi-
fled that the property was known as 1.-The
Eckart Claim, while one said it was
known as the : Christensen and Skinner
diggings' There was no evidene that
defendants grantor Christensen ever re-
ferred to the property in controversy as
The Cleveland Consolidated Placer
Mine, but there was documentary
evidence that he referred to his mining
claims by that name. He filed proof of
annual labor upon the Cleveland Con
solidated Placer Mine, for the years
1893, 1899 1900, and 1901. In his proof
for 1893, he includes in the Cleveland
Consolidated Placer Mine 1900 acres
of land but only ten acres of the twenty
acres here in controversy. In the year
1892 he described the same $50 acres.
In 1900 he included the whole twenty
acres with fifty acres of other lands
while in his proof for 1901, made about
eight months before the execution of his
deed to defendants he described the
Cleveland Consolidated Placer Mine as
being twenty acres in the south east
quarter of the section, the same err
roneous description by legal subdi-
visions as contained in his deed.
1t will thus be seen that there is no
evidence that Christensen ever indi
Gated that the boundaries of the Cleve-
land Consolidated Placer Mine were CO.
extensive with the property Ing dispute,
and ii follows that defendants can not
connect themselves with the Skinner
location, without a corrected deed from
Christensen or an action for the re-
formation of the same.
Defendants claim that Notwithstanding
the erroneous description in the Chris
Jensen deed they have proved a title by
adverse possession for five years,
because they based their claims to the
twenty acres under the Christensen
deed, and that for more than five years
preceding the commencement OF the
action they have performed the necessary
annual labor each year in developing
the claim by driving the tunnel forward,
which by them it is contended constl-
tutes possession under the law as de-
clared in English VS.. Johnson, II Cal.
100. II was there said
The taking up of mineral and in pur-
suance of the mining regulations of the
vicnage gives possessory title TO the
claim just as an entry in the land office
but it does not follow, be
cause this is the regular and usual way
OF obtaining possession, that posses
sion not so obtained would necessarily
be without the protection of the law.
In mining claims we require no other
acts, as evidence of possession, than
those usually exercised by the owner of
such claims. Going on the lead 10
work it, or even done in proximity and
in direct relation to the claim, for the
purpose of extracting, or preparing to
extract minerals from it, as for example