History
  • No items yet
midpage
Helm v. Chapman
66 Cal. 291
Cal.
1885
Check Treatment
The Court.

Section 1185 of the Code of Civil Procedure treats of the “ building, improvement, or structure” as separate and distinct from the land upon which it is erected or constructed. We think, without doing violence to the received meaning of language, a mine or pit sunk within a mining claim may be called a structure. Section 1188 does not, it is true, provide for a lien upon mines, but upon “ mining claims.” The lien, if it exists at all, extends to the whole claim. Strictly speaking, of course, a “ mining claim ” cannot be constructed, altered, or repaired. The intention of the law makers seems to have been to give a lien upon the whole claim, for labor performed on, and for materials furnished for and used in, any structure, or on or in the alteration or repair of any structure, or on or in the mining claim. We deem it our duty to give effect to the legislative purpose, by holding that one who performs labor in any pit, shaft or gallery of a mine is entitled to a lien on the whole mining claim»

Judgment affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Helm v. Chapman
Court Name: California Supreme Court
Date Published: Jan 5, 1885
Citation: 66 Cal. 291
Docket Number: No. 9,373
Court Abbreviation: Cal.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.