No. 6831
In the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles
State of California
Juan M. Luco, Plaintiff
vs.
R. S. Baker, Defendant
FINDINGS
Filed November 26, 1888
This cause came on regularly for trial before the Court sitting without a Jury, a trial by Jury having been duly waived by the respective parties. O. P. Evans, I. N. Thorne and John Robarts appeared as attorneys for the plaintiff, and Wells, Van Dyke & Lee for the defendant. Testimony, oral and documentary, was offered and introduced by the respective parties, and the cause thereupon argued and submitted to the Court for its decision, and the Court, having fully considered the case, now files its findings of fact and decision as follows, towit:
I.
That on the 22nd day of May, 1865, Jesus Hernandez and Ramon Perea, for valuable consideration, granted and conveyed to the defendant, Robert S. Baker, all their right, title and interest, in and to a claim for one hundred and sixty acres of land, or thereabouts, describing the same by meets and bounds, which tract of land was situated on the Northern slope of the San Fernando range of mountains in said County and State. Said deed was duly acknowledged on the day of its date, and recorded in the Recorder’s Office of Los Angeles County on that date. Said purchase by defendant Baker was made for himself and for one, Edward F. Beale, in equal shares, and subsequently the defendant Baker conveyed to said Beale an undivided one-half interest in and to said premises. That immediately upon making said purchase, the said defendant for himself and his co-owner, said Beale, went into possession of the premises so purchased, and continued in the possession thereof up to the time of the lease of the same, as hereinafter mentioned. That the said defendant and his co-owner Beale, sank wells for extracting petroleum oil on said premises, constructed roads leading thereto, erected the necessary improvements for working the petroleum mines located on said premises, expending in the improvements, the sum of five thousand dollars or thereabouts. That the said claim so purchased by the said Baker and occupied and improved by him and his co-owner Beale, was within the Los Angeles Asphaltum & Petroleum Mining District; that subsequently, towit, in June, 1865, a new mining district was organized, called the San Fernando Petroleum Mining District, which included and was formed out of the said Los Angeles Asphaltum & Petroleum Mining District, and embraced within its limits the aforesaid claim, so purchased, possessed and worked by the said defendant Baker and his co-owner Beale. That by the rules and regulations of the said San Fernando Petroleum Mining District, all mining claims located and held prior to the date of the passing of said rules and regulations, towit, on the 24th day of June, 1865, under the laws of the Los Angeles Asphaltum & Petroleum Mining District were recognized, upon the condition that all such claims, after said date, should be worked and held under the laws of the San Fernando Petroleum Mining District; that the said defendant and his co-owner Beale did and performed work, much more than was necessary to hold such claim according to the rules and regulations of the San Fernando Petroleum Mining District, and fully complied with said regulation in reference thereto; and were by themselves, tenants and employees in the actual, and adverse possession of said claim, which was known and designated as the Pico Oil Springs Mining Claim, up to the time of the leasing of the same to Reuben Denton, hereinafter mentioned. That Sanford Lyon was one of the employees of said defendant Baker from the time of the purchase by him from said Hernandez and Perea up to the time of said leasing, and was engaged in working on said claim for said defendant Baker, who paid for his services therefor.
II.
That on the 8th day of August, 1865, a mining claim notice was filed in the Recorder’s office of the San Fernando Petroleum Mining District, and on the 7th day of February, 1866, the said notice was recorded therein, a copy of which is attached to and made a part of plaintiff’s second amended complaint herein, and marked “Plaintiff’s Exhibit A”. That said Pio Pico, Robert S. Baker, Edward F. Beale, Sanford Lyon, Juan Foster and Francisco P. Foster, did not, nor did either of them, on or about the 8th day of August, 1865, or at all, discover and locate the claim covered by said notice; and neither of said parties ever took possession of said claim under said notice. That defendant Baker and his co-owner Beale took possession, and were in the possession of the mining claim, and worked the same, hereinafter mentioned as patented to Baker and Beale, from the date of the purchase by said defendant Baker from said Hernandez and Perea, as hereinbefore found, continuously during all the time up to and long subsequent to the date of the recording of said mining claim notice in February, 1866. That Pio Pico, Sanford Lyon, Juan Foster and Francisco P. Foster were not co-tenants with said Baker and Beale in the possession of said mining claim.
III.
That the said defendant Baker and his co-owner Beale occupied and improved said mining claim by them purchased as aforesaid, and expended in said improvements five thousand dollars or thereabouts; and thereafter, in April, 1876, they leased a portion of said premises to one Reuben Denton for a term of years, who went into possession of said premises under said lease. That the said Denton subsequently transferred his interest in said lease to said California Star Oil Works Co., or stockholders or parties connected therewith. That thereafter, during some litigation which arose between the parties claiming under said assignment of lease and said defendant, Baker, and his co-owner, Beale, it came to the knowledge of said defendant that said adverse parties in the litigation had secured conveyances [?] of Juan Foster and Francisco P. Foster [?], and were setting up a claim under the said mining notice, a copy of which is appended to plaintiff’s second amended complaint as “Exhibit A”. That the defendant, in order to protect himself against such claim in case it should turn out to be of any value, took a deed from Pio Pico, being the one bearing date the 21st of May, 1877, a copy of which is appended to plaintiff’s second amended complaint and marked “Exhibit B”, and thereupon executed the declaration of trust, a copy of which is appended to plaintiff’s second amended complaint and marked “Exhibit C”. That said Baker did not represent to the said Pico that their interests in the said Pico Oil Springs Mining Claim could be managed, controlled, or used to their mutual advantage more successfully, if the title to the same was held by one person, and did not request the said Pico that he convey to him his interest in the said Pico Oil Springs Mining Claim for such purpose; but at all the times, and long prior thereto, claimed said premises covered by his purchase as hereinbefore found, adversely to the said Pico Claim, and the said Pico made the conveyance aforesaid with the full knowledge and notice of the said adverse claim, and that the said Baker did not recognize the said claim as a valid claim. That after taking said deed and giving back the declaration mentioned, the defendant Baker, upon consulting his attorney, became dissatisfied with the arrangement, and so informed the said Pico, and executed a deed re-conveying the interest so conveyed by Pico to him, and tendered the same to Pico, and offered to re-convey whatever interests the said Pico had theretofore by his deed of May 21st, 1877, conveyed to him (Baker). Thereupon said Pico agreed to convey, absolutely and unconditionally, whatever interest he might have in said mining claim, upon the consideration, that whatever he or his brother Andres Pico might be indebted to Baker, should be satisfied thereby, and to terminate the trust to which the said defendant Baker then assented, and thereupon the said Pico executed and delivered to the said defendant Baker a deed of conveyance bearing date the 14th day of June, A.D. 1877, a copy of which is appended to plaintiff’s second amended complaint and marked “Exhibit D”. That it was not discovered soon after the execution of the deed of May 21st, 1877, that a clerical error existed therein, and the said deed of June 14th, 1877, was not executed for the purpose of correcting any clerical error in said deed of May 21st, 1877, and the said deed of June 14th, 1877, was not made without consideration, but was made on the consideration hereinbefore found; and the two deeds are not identical.
IV.
That on the [blank] day of October, 1879, said defendant, Robert S. Baker, and his co-owner in said claim as hereinbefore found, Edward F. Beale, made application to the United States Land Office at Los Angeles, in said State, to enter and purchase said claim as a mining claim under the provisions of the Revised Statues of the United States in such case made and provided, being mineral entry No. 26 in the series of said Office, and designated by the Surveyor General as Lot No. 39, embracing a portion of Township 3 N., Range 17 W., S.B.M., in the San Fernando Petroleum Mining District, in said County and State, containing one hundred and sixty acres, more or less. That said defendant Baker and said Beale founded their claim, as appears by a duly certified copy of the records and files from the United States Land Office, upon the purchase by them from said Hernandez and Perea, and upon the filing and recording of a mining claim notice in the Recorder’s Office of the Los Angeles Asphaltum & Petroleum Mining District, prior to the organization of the San Fernando Petroleum Mining District as hereinbefore found, and upon a compliance with the Revised Statutes of the United States in such case made and provided, and upon a compliance with the local rules and regulations of said mining districts; and such proceedings were had in the United States Land Office upon said application, that a patent was thereupon issued to them in the words and figures following, towit:
[Copy of United States Patent to Robert S. Baker and Edward F. Beale and plat map dated September 14, 1880]
V.
That said defendant Robert S. Baker did not by himself, or in connection with others, procure to be issued, and there never was issued to him, or to him and others, a United States patent based upon the claim, or for the claim recorded in the San Fernando Mining Records of February 7th, 1866, a copy of which is attached to plaintiff’s second amended complaint and marked “Plaintiff’s Exhibit A”. That the premises surveyed and patented by the United States as aforesaid, are not the same premises that were claimed or located under and by said notice recorded in the said San Fernando Mining Records on February 7th, 1866, although they include a portion of the same. That, as appears by the record of the proceedings, duly certified, from the United States Land Office, said patent was obtained upon the application of said Baker and Beale, based upon their purchase from the said Hernandez and Perea, upon their mining claim notice recorded in the Los Angeles Asphaltum Mining District, prior to the organization of the San Fernando Petroleum Mining District, and upon a compliance with the mining rules and regulation of said districts, and the act of Congress in that behalf provided, and not upon the location, a notice of which was recorded in the San Fernando Mining Records February 7th, 1866, a copy of which is appended to plaintiff’s second amended complaint and marked “Exhibit A”.
VI.
That the conveyance by Robert S. Baker and his co-owner Edward F. Beale, of the Pico Oil Springs Mine so patented to them, to the California Star Oil Works Company by deed bearing date the 15th day of August, 1882, was made and executed in pursuance of an agreement entered into between said parties bearing date the 28th day of June, A.D. 1879, by which agreement all controversies and conflicting claims between the parties were settled, and said Baker and Beale were to convey to the said California Star Oil Wks. Co. the said land and premises, upon condition that the said Company should transfer to said defendant Baker and said Beale four thousand and two hundred and eighty-six shares of the capital stock of said Company, and also pay the sum of twenty-five hundred dollars U.S. gold coin; the twenty-five hundred dollars cash being a settlement of the claim of said Baker and Beale for rental under the Denton lease, and the stock being the consideration for the conveyance of the premises, the remainder of the stock of ten thousand shares, towit, five thousand seven hundred and fourteen shares, where retained by the Company as a consideration for the permanent and valuable improvements placed upon said premises while in the occupation of said Company under the Denton lease, amounting to some seventy-five thousand dollars. That the fact of the settlement and sale by the said defendant Baker and said Beale to the California Star Oil Works Co. was known to said Pico a short time after the date of the same, towit, some time about August, 1879, and that the consideration expressed in such deed and conveyance was not fraudulent, and was not intended to, or did not deceive said Pico. That there was no other money or shares of stock paid over to the said defendant and his associate Beale, or received by them, other than as herein found. That the said defendant Baker, since the conveyance by himself and Beale as herein found, and the receipt of stock by them, has received dividends upon his shares of stock so held by him, towit, on two thousand one hundred and forty-three shares, the sum of forty-five thousand and on dollars.
VII.
That the said Pio Pico, on the 9th day of March, 1886, by an instrument in writing, duly sold, assigned, and transferred all his right, title and interest, of, in, or to, or arising under or by virtue of the declaration of trust, of, in and to said Pico Oil Springs Mine, and the proceeds thereof due and belonging to him, to Juan M. Luco, the plaintiff herein, who thereafter, caused the said assignment and the said instrument from Baker to Pico to be recorded in the Recorder’s Office of Los Angeles County.
As conclusions of law from the foregoing, the Court finds and decides:
I.
That the deed of June 14th, 1877, made, executed and delivered by Pio Pico to the defendant Baker, granted and conveyed to the said defendant Baker, and his heirs and assigns forever, all the right, title and interest of the said Pico in or to the said Oil Springs Claim, known as the Pico Oil Springs, with all and singular the appurtenances thereto belonging, or in anywise appertaining, with the reversions, remainders, rents, issues, and profits thereof, and that the said deed extinguished and cancelled all that right, title and interest held by said Pico, whatever the same may have been, under and by virtue of the declaration of trust executed by said Baker to him, bearing date May 21st, 1877.
II.
That the plaintiff take nothing by reason of his action, and that the defendant have judgment for his costs in this behalf expended. Let judgment be entered accordingly.
November 26, 1888
William P. Gardiner
Judge