21 P.2d 621 | Cal. Ct. App. | 1933
This proceeding is before us based upon an application of the above-named petitioner, and order to show cause why the respondent court and Honorable C.J. Luttrell, the judge thereof, should not refrain from further proceedings in a certain action pending in said court entitled, "Minerals Recovery Corporation,Ltd., a corporation plaintiff, v. Robert J. Graham and Mary DoeGraham, his wife, defendants".
It appears from the record that the above-entitled cause was tried in said superior court and judgment entered therein in favor of the plaintiff for the possession of the lands and premises known as certain mining claims, and that a writ of assistance will be issued in said action to place the plaintiff in possession thereof. The judgment in the action is to the effect that the plaintiff have judgment against the defendant restoring the possession of the premises described in the complaint to the plaintiff. The judgment in itself does not purport to affect the title to the premises. There is nothing in the judgment adjudging that either the plaintiff or the defendants have title to the disputed premises. The findings upon which the judgment is based go further and do find that the plaintiff is the owner of the premises involved. The conclusion of law based upon the findings of fact is only to the effect that the plaintiff have restitution and possession of the premises set forth in the plaintiff's complaint.
The record shows that the premises involved includes three placer mining claims, of which the complaint alleges that the plaintiff is the owner and entitled to the possession thereof, said mining claims being situate in the county of Siskiyou. It is further set forth in the complaint that the defendants wrongfully and without right entered upon said premises, took possession of certain buildings thereon which had theretofore been erected and placed upon the premises by the plaintiff, and at the time of the beginning of the action withheld the possession thereof from the plaintiff, to the plaintiff's damage in the sum of $1,000.
As against the claim set forth, upon which the plaintiff bases his right of possession, the defendants answer, setting *581 up a certain homestead entry number 255, in which the defendants assert a homestead interest in and to the premises described in the complaint.
The record shows that the plaintiff, prior to the alleged homestead entry on the part of the defendants, had built upon the premises a large store building and living apartment, five cabins, gas-pump and other mining buildings, of which the defendants have taken possession. It is further alleged by the defendants that the plaintiff, prior to the alleged homestead entry, abandoned, all and singular, the premises described in the complaint. The court found that the plaintiff had erected the buildings upon the premises, was entitled to the possession, and was, at the time of the beginning of the action, entitled to the possession. [1] As we have said, the findings went further, and to the effect that the plaintiff was the owner of the placer mining claims involved in the action. The question of ownership was not carried into the judgment, and if carried therein, of course would be ineffective, as the title to the premises is still in the general government, and only the right of possession could be determined in the action.
Among other things the trial court found as follows: "That the defendants wrongfully and without right entered into and upon the possession of said premises, occupied and used the buildings thereon and have collected and are collecting rents from said buildings," etc.
The only question for us to determine is whether the trial court had jurisdiction to adjudge the right of possession pending the outcome of any controversy as to the right of the respective parties to obtain title to the controverted premises from the general government.
[2] The record of the trial court as presented to us does not show that any contest is pending in the general land office, wherein the title to the disputed premises is involved. The petition for the injunction in this proceeding does set forth that after the trial in said action a contest has been filed. This, however, cannot be considered in determining the jurisdiction of the trial court to pass upon the right of possession pending the outcome of such contest.
[3] While the state courts have no jurisdiction to determine questions of title or right to public lands of the United States subject to settlement, it appears almost without a dissenting *582 opinion that state courts do have jurisdiction of merely possessory actions.
In volume 12, American English Annotated cases, page 32, are collected a number of cases supporting the following statement of the law: "The courts are without jurisdiction to determine the rights of rival claimants of public lands while a controversy is being waged before the proper officers of the interior department to settle such rights, and will refuse to aid either party, by way of affirmative relief, until the controversy is finally determined by that department; but they have jurisdiction to prevent the wrongful invasion of the possession of one in the actual occupancy of the public domain, so long as the title remains in the government." . . . (Citing a long list of authorities.) And further: "In the exercise of this jurisdiction, the courts do not attempt to pass upon the merits of the respective claims of the contending parties, and decide which has successfully initiated and established his right ultimately to receive the legal title to the land, but only protect the actual possession, and prevent any wrongful and forcible interference therewith, until the government parts with its title. (CitingFulmele v. Camp,
To the same effect is the case of Reaves v. Oliver, 3 Okl. 62 [
In Bay v. Oklahoma So. Gas, Oil Min. Co., 13 Okl. 425 [
In 30 U.S.C.A., page 269, is quoted a list of cases, so long that only general reference thereto can be made, supporting the following: In the absence of diverse citizenship, and where there is no question as to the meaning and construction of a statute, state courts are regarded as having competent jurisdiction to determine the right of possession. Whether the state court in the action involving the possession of the premises set forth in the complaint of Minerals Recovery Corp. v. Robert J. Graham etal. correctly determined the right of possession is immaterial. The cases to which we have called attention establish the fact that state courts have jurisdiction to determine who is entitled to possession of disputed premises pending determination of a contest before the general land office involving the title. For this reason the order to show cause heretofore issued in this proceeding is vacated, and a writ of prohibition denied.
Pullen, P.J., and Thompson, J., concurred. *585