In the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles
State of California

Juan M. Luco, Plaintiff

vs.

R. S. Baker,
Defendant

ANSWER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Filed October 27, 1888

Now comes the above-named defendant, R. S. Baker, and not waiving his demurrer to the second amended complaint of the plaintiff filed herein, but insisting upon the same and every part thereof, for answer to the said second amended complaint of the plaintiff, denies for himself and upon information and belief:

I. That on or about the 8th day of August, 1865, or at any other time or at all, Pio Pico, R. S. Baker, Edward F. Beale, Sanford Lyon, Juan Foster and Francisco P. Foster, or any of them, discovered, located and claimed, or discovered, or located, or claimed for mining purposes, or for any purposes whatsoever, a or any certain tract of land of about one hundred and sixty acres, or of any acres or size whatever, yielding petroleum or mineral oils, or any oil or oils whatsoever, situate, lying and being in the San Fernando Mining District in the County of Los Angeles and State of California, or otherwise at all.

This defendant denies for himself, and upon information and belief denies, that the or any notice of the alleged and pretended location in said second amended complaint mentioned was duly or at all recorded in the Recorder's Office of the San Fernando Petroleum Mining District, or anywhere, or at all, on the 7th day of February, 1866, or at any time or at all. And in this behalf defendant admits, that the paper attached to and made apart of the said second amended complaint herein, and marked plaintiff's "Exhibit A", was recorded in the Recorder's Office of the said San Fernando Petroleum Mining District, on the 7th day of February, 1866, but denies on information and belief, that the said paper ever was a valid notice, or notice of location of any mining claim whatsoever or that the same was ever recorded under and by virtue, or in pursuance of the mining laws, regulations, and customs of said San Fernando Petroleum Mining District.

This defendant denies for himself, and upon information and belief denies, that the persons alleged to have located said land in said second amended complaint mentioned, immediately thereafter, or ever thereafter, took possession of the said mining claim or worked the same in accordance with the local mining laws of the San Fernando Petroleum Mining District, or under any of said laws, or in accordance with the mining laws of the United States, or that said alleged locators, or their successors, or their grantees, or their assigns, or any of them, ever since have owned and possessed, or owned or possessed said mining claim or premises, or any portion thereof. And denies that said location, or any location by the said parties was generally known, or known at all, as the Pico Oil Springs Mine, or that the same was the Pico Oil Springs Mine. II. This defendant further answering said second amended complaint of the plaintiff filed herein, denies that on or about and during the months of March and April, 1877, or at any other time he represented to the said Pio Pico, that their interests in the said Oil Springs Mining Claim could be managed, controlled and used, or managed, or controlled, or used to their mutual advantage, or to any advantage more successfully, or at all successfully if the title to the same or any portion thereof, was held by one person; or that he then and there, or at any time requested of the said Pico that he convey to him, this defendant, his interest, or any interest in the said Pico Oil Springs Claim, or any portion thereof, or promised to the said Pico that if he would so convey or otherwise or at all, he, this defendant, would bestow the same care and attention, or any care or attention on the interest so conveyed to him, as upon his own interest, or would make returns of all or any portion of the profits and proceeds, or profits or proceeds arising from the work, or use, or other disposition of the interests so conveyed to him, or that he, the said Pico, assented thereto, or that thereupon or about the 21st. day of May, 1877, or at any time or at all, in pursuance of said understanding or agreement, said Pico conveyed to him, this defendant, his right, title, or interest in or to the said Pico Oil Springs claim, or the premises described in said second amended complaint, or any portion thereof; but on the contrary, this defendant avers the fact to be, that during the month of January, 1865, Jesus Hernandez and Ramon Perea, entered into the possession of a certain mining claim situated within the limits of the Los Angeles Petroleum Mining District, subsequently included within the San Fernando Petroleum Mining District, in said County, and described as follows:

Commencing at a rock fourteen inches long by six feet and two inches thick on top of a lobe some twelve chains Northwesterly from Naptha Spring in Petroleum Ravine; thence South across a deep abyss to a saddle of the summit of a high ridge to a stake and stones; thence East to a live oak tree 15 inches in diameter duly marked in a little plain in the Petroleum Ravine aforesaid; thence North over high peaks on the North of said Ravine to a stake and stones on the North slope of said hills or peaks; thence West across and up the aforesaid Petroleum Ravine to the place of beginning, being about forty chains square and including Naptha Spring.

And thereafter, on the 22nd. day of May, 1865, duly recorded a notice of their location of said claim in the office of the County Recorder of Los Angeles County, State of California, and also a copy of said notice in the records of said Los Angeles Petroleum Mining District, whereof Wm. P. Reynolds was then and there Recorder; that subsequently the San Fernando Petroleum Mining District was organized, which last named District was formed out of a portion of the said Los Angeles Petroleum Mining District, and embraced within its limits the aforesaid mining claim. That by the laws of said San Fernando Petroleum Mining District, all the locations theretofore made in the Los Angeles Petroleum Mining District were recognized and were not required to be relocated or recorded in the records of said San Fernando Petroleum Mining District, but only required that the regulations of the San Fernando Petroleum Mining District in regard to the amount of work necessary to hold the claim, should be complied with, and that these regulations were duly complied with by said locators, and from the time of the location forward to the date of the sale by them as hereinafter mentioned, the said locators were in the actual, notorious, continuous, and adverse possession of said Pico Mining Claim, and perfected their said location under and in compliance with the rules and regulations of the said mining district. That thereafter, towit, on the 22nd day of May, 1865, the said Jesus Hernandez and Ramon Perea, for valuable consideration, granted and conveyed to this defendant, the said mining claim, and all their right, title and interest thereto, by deed bearing date on that day, which deed was duly acknowledged and recorded in the Recorder's Office of said Los Angeles County on that date in Book 7 of Deeds, page 216. That said purchase by this defendant was made for himself and one Edward F. Beale in equal shares, and this defendant subsequently conveyed to said Beale an undivided on half interest in and to said claim and premises. That at the date of their said purchase they went into possession of said lands and premises, and continued thereunder in the notorious, peaceable, exclusive and adverse possession by themselves, tenants and employees, and expended a large sum of money in improvements upon, and in developing the same, and in extracting oil therefrom, amounting to not less than five thousand dollars. Than on April 12th, 1876, they leased a portion of said premises for a term of three years to one R. H. Denton.

Defendant further alleges that during the term of said lease, a certain litigation occured between certain parties and this defendant and his co-tenant Beale in reference to said mining oil claim, and that during the pendency of said litigation, said parties so opposed to said defendant and said Beale, purchased and caused to be assigned to them what purported to be the interest held by Juan Foster and Francisco P. Foster in and to the said pretended location mentioned and set out in the second amended complaint herein and marked plaintiff's "Exhibit A:. That this defendant hearing of this pretended claim caused an examination of the books and records of the County Recorder's Office of this County and of the San Fernando Petroleum Mining District to be made, and then and there learned for the first time of the said pretended claim, and ascertained that this defendant's name and that of his co-tenant Edward F. Beale, had been signed to said pretended notice of location of an oil claim, and defendant alleges that his name and that of said Beale had been coupled with the name of said Juan Foster and Francisco P. Foster to said pretended location, without their or either of their knowledge or consent thereto. That thereupon this defendant denounced the same as a sham and fraud, and the said Pico, as defendant is informed and believes, disclaimed any right or title to said mining claim of the defendant and his co-tenant Beale in and to their said mining claim, and offered, if it would assist this defendant in any manner in his contest with said parties, to convey to him whatever right he might have arising out of or connected with the said mining location set out in the mining claim notice, a copy of which is set out in plaintiff's second amended complaint and marked plaintiff's "Exhibit A", and thereupon the deed of conveyance, a copy of which is appended to plaintiff's said second amended complaint and marked plaintiff's "Exhibit B" was executed by the said Pico and tendered to this defendant, and that thereupon, the instrument signed by this defendant, a copy of which is appended to plaintiff's second amended complaint and marked plaintiff's "Exhibit C" was executed, in case said claim should be adjudged valid in said contest, it being, however, distinctly understood and known by the said Pico that this defendant and his co-tenant Beale claimed and owned the mining ground, subsequently embraced within their patent, under and by virtue of the purchase from Hernandez and Perea hereinbefore referred to, and adversely to all other claims or pretended claims, including the one set forth in plaintiff's second amended complaint and marked plaintiff's "Exhibit A".

That this defendant, after execution of said deed to him of May 21st, 1877, and the signing by this defendant of the instrument in connection therewith, in consultation with his attorney in reference to the matter, was informed by his said attorney, and thereupon believed that it might compromise him and be considered to mean that he should protect the said Pico in the said claim, whereas his, the said defendant's interest, as well known to said Pico at the time, was adverse to that claim, and he, this defendant and his co-owner Beale was at all times holding adversely and working to defeat any and all other claims against their said claim so purchased from the said Hernandez and Perea, and thereupon, after said consultation, and being of the opinion that it might compromise him and effect his said interests with reference to his said claim and that of his co-owner, Beale, he offered to re-convey to the said Pico the said interest conveyed to him by said deed of May 21st, 1877, and cancel and destroy the said declaration by this defendant signed in connection therewith, unless he, the said Pico, should convey absolutely, without any trust, expressed or implied, on the part of this defendant in connection therewith, and upon a valuable and valid consideration, which latter the said Pico agreed to do; and thereafter, towit, on the 14th day of June, 1877, the said Pico, for a valuable consideration executed and delivered to this defendant the deed of conveyance, a copy of which is appended to plaintiff's said second amended complaint and marked "Exhibit D", which was intended and did have the effect of conveying whatever interest the said Pico had or might have in the said pretended claim, a copy of which is appended to plaintiff's second amended complaint and marked plaintiff's "Exhibit A", and annul and cancel the said instrument signed by this defendant in connection with the first deed of May 21sth, 1877, and this defendant denies that the said deed or deeds and the said instrument in connection with the first deed of May 21st, 1877, was made, executed, or delivered for any other or different purpose, or in any other of different manner than as hereinbefore stated, and denies that the said Beale or any of the parties whose names are connected with this defendant's on the notice, a copy of which is appended to plaintiff's said second amended complaint and marked plaintiff's "Exhibit A", constituted or included the Pico Oil Springs Claim, or that they were any other or different from that stated in said notice, towit, the "Pico Lead", and that the said "Pico Lead", or pretended claim was no part of, and did not include the claim owned and held by this defendant and his co-tenant Beale as purchasers from the said Hernandez and Perea, and which was subsequently patended to them.

III. This defendant further answering said second amended complaint denies that he executed or acknowledged of the instrument appended to plaintiff's second amended complaint and marked "Exhibit B" for any other or different purpose than that herein before in the second subdivision of this answer stated. This defendant denies that soon thereafter or at all it was discovered that there was a clerical error in said deed from said Pico to this defendant, and denies that it was for the purpose of correcting said error or any error that the said Pico on the 14th day of June, 1877, at the request of this defendant, or otherwise, made of deed of conveyance on that date, and denies that the deed of June 14th, 1877, was made for any other or different purpose, or in any other or different manner than as hereinbefore in this answer stated. And denies that said deed of the 14th of June, 1877, was made without consideration; denies that the two deeds are identical in form, excepting the said error in reference to the part of the second part, as in the said second amended complaint of plaintiff's alleged, or otherwise; and avers that the deed of June 14th, 1877, was made for a valid and valuable consideration, and for the purpose of conveying to this defendant any and all interest that the said Pico might have clear and discharged of any trust, either express or implied.

IV. This defendant further answering the said second amended complaint of the plaintiff's filed herein, denies that he and his associate, by virtue of the mining laws or otherwise, as the grantees of the claim, or pretended claim, a copy of which is appended to plaintiff's second amended complaint and marked plaintiff's "Exhibit A", procured to be issued to them a United States patent for the Pico Oil Springs Mine, or for any other mine. Denies that he himself, or in connection with others obtained any patent of title whatever to any mining claim, by virtue or in consequence of any interest acquired from the said Pico by the deeds hereinbefore referred to and appended to plaintiff's said second amended complaint or otherwise.

And this defendant further answering said second amended complaint, denies that the premises surveyed and patended to this defendant and the said Beale by the United States, are the same that were claimed and located, or claimed or located, or claimed or pretended to be located by the said Pico and others by virtue of the mining notice, a copy of which is appended to plaintiff's second amended complaint and marked plaintiff's "Exhibit A", but this defendant avers on the contrary that he, and his co-tenant Beale made application in due form of law to the United States Land Office, basing their application entirely upon the location made by the said Hernandez and Perea and the title derived from them to this defendant and his associate Beale, and upon a compliance by themselves and their grantors with the laws of the United States, and the mining rules and regulations of the district in the premises, and that upon said application being made, due notice was given according to law and the rules and regulation of the Land Office Department, and thereafter, upon proof of the location of the said Hernandez and Perea, the title acquired by this defendant and his co-tenant Beale by mesne conveyance from the said locators, and a full compliance with the rules, laws and regulations aforesaid, and upon payment of the amount required by law in such cases made and provided, and upon the full determination of their rights in the premises and adjudication against all adverse claims and contentions, including the said pretended mining location, a copy of which notice is appended to the plaintiff's second amended complaint and marked plaintiff's "Exhibit A", the land and premises described in said patent was awarded to this defendant and his co-tenant Beale, and a patent of the United States was thereupon duly executed and issued to them accordingly.

V. This defendant further answering said second amended complaint denies that the consideration expressed in the deed of conveyance by himself and his co-tenant Beale was fraudulent of deceptive, and denies that on the day said deed was executed and delivered, or ever or at all, the said Company delivered to this defendant or to any person for him or for his use, or to his co-grantor named in said deed or at all $150,000 in cash, or any other sum in cash than $5.00 alleged as the money consideration of said deed; and denies that the said conveyance was made with any design to cheat or defraud any person whatever; denies that said Pico had any interest or any right to anything in reference to the said deed of conveyance, but avers on the contrary that the said Pico soon after the execution of the said deed of Aug. 15th, 1882, and within a month thereafter, had full notice and knowledge of the said conveyance by this defendant and his co-tenant Beale to the California Star Oil Works Co., and of the consideration received for such conveyance, and he then and there made no claim or pretention to have any interest in or to the same, but disavowed on the contrary having any interest, title or claim in and to the same, and this defendant avers the fact to be that the said Pico had no claim, right title, or interest whatever in and to the said premises so conveyed, or in and to the consideration received for such conveyance, or in or to the proceeds of any of the workings of said mines, or in or to the capital stock of said Company, or of the dividends or in or to any accumulations thereof.

VI. This defendant further answering said second amended complaint of the plaintiff herein, denies that the exact amount of money received by this defendant as dividends upon the capital stock of the California Star Oil Works Co. cannot be ascertained by the plaintiff unless by reference to and an examination of the books and papers of said Co. On the contrary he alleges that such information could at all times be ascertained from this defendant by any person entitled to such information. Denies that he ever or at all committed any fraud, fraudulent act or acts towards or concerning the plaintiff, or his said assignor, said Pico, in the premises.

This defendant further answering said second amended complaint upon information and belief, denies that said Pio Pico, on the 9th day of March, 1886, or at any time by an instrument in writing for a valuable consideration, or for any consideration whatever, duly sold, or sold, assigned or transferred all his right, or any right, title or interest, of, in or to the said Pico Oil Springs Mine, or the proceeds thereof due or to become due, or belonging to said Pico to the plaintiff herein, and denies that on the 9th day of March, 1886, the said Pico had any interest, right, or title, of, in, or to said Pico Oil Springs Mine, or the proceeds thereof, to transfer, or sell or assign to plaintiff, or to any other person. And on information and belief this defendant alleges that on or before the 9th day of March, 1886, said Pio Pico, conspiring and confederating with the plaintiff herein for a fraudulent purpose, and with a fraudulent intent and not otherwise, agreed that it should be understood between them that the said Pico had transferred to the plaintiff a certain fictitious and fraudulent claim without consideration and not otherwise, and for the express purpose of demanding money from this defendant, which they well knew this defendant did not owe, and in instituting suits against this defendant with the fraudulent intent and purpose of extorting money or a sum of money from this defendant, and if they should succeed in their fraudulent intents and purposes to divide the same so received between them, less the costs of suit and attorney's fees for instituting such suit. And upon information and belief this defendant alleges that said pretended and fictitious claim was assigned the said Pico to the said plaintiff without any consideration, and to carry out such fraudulent purpose and conspiracy by said Pico and said plaintiff.

VII. And for a further answer and defense to said second amended complaint, this defendant alleges, that the pretended and alleged express trust sought to be enforced in this action is contrary to public policy, forbidden by law and void, and of no effect.

VIII. And for another further answer and defense to said second amended complaint, this defendant alleges that the plaintiff and his assignor have both been guilty of great and unreasonable delay, laches and neglect in preferring their alleged complaints and in setting forth their pretended cause of action, and in commencing this action, and that plaintiff is therefore not entitled to any relief in this Court.

IX. And for a further answer and defense to said second amended complaint, this defendant alleges that the same, and the alleged and pretended causes of action therein set forth is and are, each and all of them barred by the provisions of Sections 318, 319, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, and 343 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California.


Wherefore, defendant having fully answered said second amended complaint of the plaintiff filed herein, asks to be hence discharged with his costs.

Wells, Van Dyke & Lee
Attorneys for Robert S. Baker

Subscribed and sworn by Robert S. Baker on October 27, 1888