Publisher's Synopsis
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1890 edition. Excerpt: ...220; Irwin vs Phillip, 5 Cal. 140; Sims vs Smith, 7 Cal. 148; Butte Canal, etc., vs Waters, etc., 11 Cal. 143. This was contrary to English riparian rules, which were agitated in later years for irrigation purposes, as will be shown in my next vol. Instance decisions in Nims vs Johnson, 7 Cal. 110; OilJam vs Hutchinson, 16 Cal. 153; Lentz vs Victor, 17 Cal. 271; Irwin vs Philips, 5 CaL 145; Hicks vs Bill, 3 Cal. 227. In course of time, miners were forbidden to approach too close to buildings. An act of Apr. 25, 1855, protected crops and improvements till after harvest. Even town lots could be mined so long as residences and business were not injured, and many camps and settlements were moved more than once. No patents were issued to land in this region in early days, and so long as it was not formally withdrawn, miners might bring proof for gaining entry. See comments, in Sac. Union, Dec. 8, 1854; Sept. 20, 1855; Alia Cal, Nov. 3, Dec. 21, 1852; Hayes' Mining, ii. 206-48; Sac Transcript, Jan. 14, 1851; Wood's Pioneer, 98-9. 61 Instance cases in Shinn's Mining Camps, 262 et seq. Often barren places were enriched with valuable soil, but oftener good land was ruined by barren debris. This question belongs to my later vol. 65 Such holdings under Mexican grants did exist, and contrary to the usage of most countries, and of Mexico itself, the United States permitted no intrusion upon them even for minerals. See Fremont vs Flower. Folsom, Bidwell, and Reading were among other tract owners in the mining region. Land in the mining region was too long withheld from sale to farmers, for most of it was valueless for mining. Conventions met to consider the respective interests, and the legislature gave them attention. Cal. Jour. Ass., 1853, p. 865;...
