Case Name: GRAND PRIZE HYDRAULIC MINES v. BOSWELL
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1915-09-07
Citations: 83 Or. 1
Docket Number: 
Parties: GRAND PRIZE HYDRAULIC MINES v. BOSWELL.
Judges: Mr. Justice McCamant delivered the opinion of the court.
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 83
Pages: 1–20

Head Matter:
Motion to dismiss appeal denied September 7, 1915.
Argued on the merits.January 16, affirmed February 6, 1917.
GRAND PRIZE HYDRAULIC MINES v. BOSWELL.
(151 Pac. 368; 162 Pac. 1063.)
Appeal and Error — Filing of Transcript — Premature Filing.
_ 1. Where no exceptions were taken to the sufficiency of the sureties on an undertaking oh appeal, filed and served on the day of the filing and serving of notice of appeal, a transcript filed two days later was not prematurely filed, and the court could not dismiss the appeal on that ground.
Appeal and Error — Filing of Transcript — Jurisdiction of Appellate Court.
2. Under Section 554, L. O. L., providing that, on an appeal being perfected, appellant shall, within 30 days, file a transcript, an appeal may not be dismissed where, within 30 d^ys after perfecting the appeal, an abstract was filed, containing all that the rules of the Supreme Court required to be included therein, and hence ample to give the court jurisdiction.
Appeal and Error — Filing of Transcript — Premature Filing.
3. An appeal may not be dismissed, on the ground that the transcript was prematurely filed, where it was required on appellant’s application for a restraining order pending the appeal.
ON THE MEBITS.
Mines and Minerals — Public Mineral Lands — Nature of Eight Acquired.
4. A person, locating mining claims under Sections 3901-3906, L. O. L., acquires only a temporary possessory right, subject to divest ment by failure to purchase or lease lands under regulations of state land board.
[As to discovery of minerals in mining claims and rights of locator prior thereto, see note in 139 Am. St. Rep. 154.]
Public Lands — Distinction Between State and Federal Lands.
5. A distinction exists between the policy of the federal government and the Oregon state government regarding the taking up of public lands, the former being for purposes of development and the latter to provide funds for the public school system.
Estoppel — Boundaries of Mining Claims.
6. Where plaintiff assisted defendant in entering a mining claim actually within his own staked claim and, upon defendant striking “pay-dirt,” admitted in presence of witnesses that the claim belonged to defendant and offered to buy it, and in view of other testimony offered, held that plaintiff was estopped from claiming the property.
Estoppel — Mining Claims.
7. Where the son of an entrant of mining claims acquiesced in his father’s actions whieh estopped the latter from claiming lands entered by defendant, and the son making no objection to defendant’s location of the claim, the son also is estopped from claiming the disputed land.
Estoppel — Ownership of Mining Claim.
8. Where a person, furnishing money for plaintiff’s use in buying mining claims, asked to be made a defendant in a suit for lands entered by defendant within plaintiff’s boundaries, and asserted the validity of defendant’s title, he could not assert any claim himself to the disputed property.
Mines and Minerals — Assignment of Mining Claim — Rights of Assignee.
9. The assignee of a mining claim cannot claim any rights superior to those of his assignor, unless he be an innocent purchaser for value.
Frauds, Statute of — Mining Claims — Verbal Option.
10. In view of Section 5132, L. O. L., making a mining claim real property, an interest therein cannot be created by verbal option.
Mines and Minerals — Option for Purchase of Mining Claim — Estoppel of Assignee.
11. In view of evidence offered in dispute over mining claim, the assignee of a contract, which was an option for purchase of mining lands, held not to be an innocent purchaser, and an estoppel, operating against assignor, will also estop assignee.
Mines and Minerals — Option for Purchase of Mining Claim.
12. A contract, giving possession and right to purchase mining property, but with right to terminate the contract, held to be an option of purchase.
Pleading — Pleading Legal Effect — Construction on Appeal.
13. Where defendant’s answer did not plead an estoppel, but pleaded facts constituting an estoppel, upon appeal they will be given their legal effect.
On Motion to Dismiss.
From Josephine: Frank M. Calkins, Judge.
Statement by Mr. Justice Benson.
This is a suit by the Grand Prize Hydraulic Mines, an Oregon corporation, D. K. Sutherland, T. M. Anderson and T. J. Anderson against B. Boswell, B. J. Boswell and W. A. Akers.
On May 11,1915, plaintiffs filed and served a notice of appeal to this court, and on the same day filed and served an undertaking on appeal with the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company as surety. Plaintiffs during the pendency of the suit in the lower court had obtained a temporary injunction restraining defendants from removing ore or minerals from the mines which are the subject of the litigation, and as the decree of the trial court was in favor of defendants, the decree also ordered the dissolution of the injunction, but, on account of the peculiar conditions existing, delayed such dissolution until May 14th, in order to enable plaintiffs to apply to this court for a similar restraining order, pending the appeal. Such application was made, and was heard by Mr. Justice Harris on May 13th, at which hearing the application was granted. On May 13th, prior to the hearing, a transcript on appeal was filed.
Motion to Dismiss Denied.
Mr. E. D. Norton and Mr. Gus Newbury, for the motion.
Mr. Alfred E. Reames and Mr. Bert SoMesinger, contra..
Authorities discussing the different phases of the question of location of mining claims are gathered in a comprehensive note in 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 763. Reporter.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Benson
delivered the opinion of the court.
Defendants move to dismiss the appeal upon the ground that the transcript was prematurely filed, and rely upon the decisions of this court in the cases of Graf v. Pearcy, 76 Or. 488 (149 Pac. 532), and Cook v. City of Albina, 20 Or. 190 (25 Pac. 386). However, the facts upon which these decisions are based are widely different from those of the case at bar. In each of the cases cited, exceptions were taken to the sufficiency of the sureties, while in this case no such exceptions were ever filed. In addition, it may be noted that within thirty days after the perfecting of this appeal, an abstract was filed which contains all that the rules of this court require to be included therein, and is therefore ample to give this court jurisdiction: Section 554, L. O. L. But if it were otherwise, it is obvious that the transcript was necessarily required in the consideration of the application for a restraining order, and was therefore properly filed at that time.
The motion to dismiss the appeal is therefore denied. Motion Denied.