POIRE and MILLER v. THE LEADVILLE IMPROVEMENT COMPANY

POIRE and MILLER v. THE LEADVILLE IMPROVEMENT COMPANY. (Supreme Court of Colorado, December Term, 1882 from Lake Cbunty District Court). Public Lands—Mining Locations and Claims—Patent. The same questions as in Poire v. Wells, see p. 383. [MAJORITY — Beck, C. J.] Beck, C. J. This was a suit in the nature of an action of ejectment, brought by the appellee against the appellants to recover possession of lot three, in block number two, in the Leadville Improvement Company’s addition to the town of Leadville, being a subdivision of the Stevens & Leiter placer claim, designated as United States survey number 271. The plaintiff below alleged title by conveyance from Stevens & Leiter, who acquired title to the placer claim, designated as United States survey number 271, which includes the lot in controversy, by a patent from the United States. The defendants, in their last amended answer, attempt to assail the patent upon two grounds: First—That the land it covered was occupied and used as a town site at and before any application made for this patent, and was reserved from sale under the mining laws of the United States. Second—Because the patent contained over 160 acres of land for two individuals, as one single placer mining claim, with one survey, one plat, one notice on the claim, and one publication in a newspaper, and only the necessary work done and improvements made requisite for a 160 acre claim. There were other matters of defense stated in that portion of the answer demurred to, but since they are not relied upon in this appeal, it is unnecessary to state them. T. A. Green, for appellant. Ex parte. The Court below sustained the demurrer to the portions of the amended answer specified therein, and the defendants having elected to stand by their answer as amended, judgment was entered upon the demurrer, and a trial had as to the remaining issues, which were found in favor of the plaintiff. Upon the entry of final judgment, defendants prayed this appeal. The questions raised by the assignment of errors, and discussed. by counsel, are identical, so far as they go, with those presented and just decided in Poire v. Wells. The same patent is the subject of attack, in the same form of action, and upon the same grounds, substantially. The authorities, therefore, cited and relied upon in the former case equally apply to this case. The patent cannot be impeached in this action upon the grounds stated. The judgment will be affirmed. Judgment affirmed.