Talk:Davis v. Wiebbold

This page is part of a WikiProject to improve the United States Supreme Court case pages. To participate see the project page.

Information about this edition
Edition:	Davis v. Wiebbold, in the complaint as a quartz lode, known as the 'Gold Hill Lode Mining Claim,' in the Summit Valley mining district in that county, and is described by metes and bounds It is alleged to contain seven acres and a fraction of an acre of land, and to embrace 1,460 linear feet of the Gold Hill lode The complaint avers that in January, 1881, the plaintiff was the owner and entitled to the possession of the property; that afterwards, in June, 1881, while he was still owner and entitled to its possession, the defendants wrongfully and unlawfully entered thereon and withheld the same from him, to his damage of $5,000; and that its rents and profits during that time amount to $10,000 The plaintiff, therefore, prays to be adjudged its owner, and to be entitled to its possession, and for his damages in the sum of $15,000 One of the defendants, Andrew J Davis, the appellant here, appeared to the action, and filed a separate answer to the complaint, denying the ownership by the plaintiff, or his right to the possession of portions of the quartz lode mining claim described in the complaint, which portions are designated as certain lots in block 13, in Butte City, Silver Bow county, according to the official survey of the town-site in the recorder's office of the county; and as to the residue of the premises, described in the complaint, disclaiming any right or interest therein He further denied that he ever entered upon the lots described without right or title and ejected the plaintiff therefrom, and also the alleged value of the rents and profits since such supposed entry Davis, as a separate defense, also set up, in bar of the action, the statute of limitations of Montana, and that he and those under whom he derived his interest had been in possession of the lots described more than five years, under a claim of title founded upon a written conveyance thereof, exclusive of any other right It is not disclosed by the record that any other of the defendants appeared in the action To the answer filed the plaintiff replied, traversing the averments of the separate defense On the trial which followed the plaintiff relied upon the patent of the United States for the mining claim described in the complaint, issued to him, bearing date January 15, 1880 It recites that in pursuance of the provisions of the Revised Statutes of the United States (chapter 6, tit 32) there had been deposited in the general land-office of the United States the plat and field-notes of survey of the claim of Heinrich C Wiebbold (the plaintiff herein) upon the Gold Hill lode, accompaned by the certificate of the register of the land-office at Helena, in the territory of Montana, whereby it appeared that in pursuance of the Revised Statutes Wiebbold did, on the 19th of September, 1878, enter and pay for said mining claim or premises, being mineral entry No 438, in the series of said office, designated by the surveyor general as lot No 65, in the district of lands subject to sale at Helena, containing seven acres and sixty-hundredths of an acre of land, more or less, and which is fully described by metes and bounds .
Source:	Davis v. Wiebbold from http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/139
Contributor(s):	BenchBot
Level of progress:	Text being edited
Notes:	Gathered and wikified using an automated tool. See this documentation for more information.
Proofreaders: