Mining Co. v. Boggs
Mining Co. v. Boggs
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
No question is raised by the pleadings, of which this court has jurisdiction upon writs of error to the Supreme Court of California, unless by the allegation of prior possession of this land for the purpose of taking out the minerals. But this allegation does not set up any authority exercised under the United States in taking such possession, nor any treaty or statute of the United States, in virtue of which it was taken. Nor does it anywhere appear from the record that the decision of the State court was against the validity of any such authority, treaty, or statute. The ease brought before us is, therefore, wanting in the requirement made essential to our jurisdiction by the 25th section of the Judiciary Act.
If we were at liberty to look into the opinion of the court for the purpose of ascertaining what questions were made on the argument, and decided by the court, we should find that, upon a liberal construction of the stipulations of counsel, the defendants were allowed to insist that they were warranted in their possession of the lands, for the purpose
We doubt whether such a claim, even if made in the pleadings, ivould be such an allegation as would give jurisdiction to this court.
However that may be, there was no decision of the court against the validity of such a license. The decision was, that no such license existed; and this was a finding by the court of a question of fact upon the submission of the whole case by the parties, rather than a judgment upon a question of law.
It is the same case, in principle, as would be made by an allegation in defence to an action of ejectment, of a patent from the United States with an averment of its loss or de-' struction, and a finding by the jury that no such patent existed, and a consequent judgment for the defendant. Such a judgment would deny, not the validity, but the existence of the patent. And this court would have no jurisdiction to review it.
The writ of error must, therefore, be
Dismissed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Mining Company v. Boggs
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. In a suit to recover mineral lands on the Pacific coast, with the mines therein, an allegation of record, of prior possession of the land for the purpose of taking out the minerals, without an allegation that such possession is had under authority, or hy some treaty or statute of the United States, does not give this court jurisdiction to re-examine the case under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act of 1789. 2. Nor has the court jurisdiction where the decision below is that, as a matter of fact, no such license exists; the courts of the State, to whose highest court of law and equity the writ of error is sent, having the power, under the constitution of its State, to decide both law and fact upon submission of the case by the parties.