## Facts

- During the Gold Rush, Hicks and other miners located and worked a river mining claim marked by boundaries recognized under local mining-district rules and customs.
- The plaintiffs were in actual possession of part of the claim and took steps to develop additional portions, including arrangements related to constructing a ditch.
- Bell and other rival miners entered the lower portion within the same bounded claim and began working it, disputing that plaintiffs’ partial occupation and local customs gave rights to the unworked portion.
- At trial, plaintiffs introduced evidence of local mining laws and customs governing the size and acquisition of claims.
- Because the original written mining laws were shown to be lost, the court admitted a copy as secondary evidence.
- The court also admitted evidence of a ditch-related agreement with a third party, not as a source of title, but as proof of plaintiffs’ asserted continuing occupation and intent to hold the claim.
- Defendants argued plaintiffs lacked sufficient actual possession of the disputed area and contended the district court lacked jurisdiction due to statutes expanding justice-court jurisdiction.

## Issues

1. Whether actual possession and working of part of a mining claim, when the claim is bounded and defined under local mining customs, constitutes possession of the entire claim against later entrants on unworked portions.
2. Whether local mining laws and customs may be proved and applied to define the extent of a possessory mining claim, including by secondary evidence when an original writing is lost.
3. Whether the effect of facts offered to show possession under mining customs presents mixed questions of law and fact for the jury.
4. Whether a district court’s constitutionally granted civil jurisdiction is displaced or limited by statutes enlarging the jurisdiction of justices of the peace.
5. Whether the state may regulate possessory mining rights and mining “police” within its borders even when the United States holds the fee to the land.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of California affirmed the judgment for the plaintiffs.
- The court held that actual possession of part of a bounded claim may constitute possession of the whole, subject to controlling mining customs, and that proof of the relevant custom and its application is for the jury.
- The court approved admitting evidence of mining-district rules and customs, including a copy of written rules after proof that the original was lost.
- The court held the ditch-related agreement was admissible as circumstantial evidence of plaintiffs’ asserted continued occupation, not as an independent basis of title.
- The court ruled that presumptions drawn from the evidence of possession and custom commonly present mixed law-and-fact questions properly submitted to the jury under instructions.
- The court rejected the jurisdictional challenge, concluding that statutory expansion of justice-court jurisdiction did not exclude the district court’s constitutional jurisdiction in civil cases exceeding the monetary threshold.
- The court accepted that the state may regulate the mines’ local police and possessory arrangements within the state even if federal ownership of the fee is assumed.

## Legal Principles

- Actual possession of a portion of land within defined claim boundaries can amount to possession of the whole claim, subject to the controlling customs of the mining district.
- Mining-district customs and rules, once proved, may define the extent of possessory mining claims and the character of constructive possession.
- When an original document is shown to be lost, secondary evidence (such as a copy) may be admitted to prove its contents.
- Evidence not establishing title may still be admissible to show intent, continuity of occupation, and the parties’ understanding of ongoing possession.
- Many evidentiary presumptions bearing on possession and custom are mixed questions of law and fact appropriate for jury resolution.
- Constitutional grants of general trial-court jurisdiction are not impliedly curtailed by statutes enlarging the jurisdiction of inferior courts.
- A state may regulate the local administration and protection of mining possession within its borders even where the federal government retains ultimate title to the land.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed that miners’ local customs could define bounded claims and support constructive possession beyond the ground actively worked, upheld key evidentiary rulings proving those customs and intent to hold the claim, and confirmed both the district court’s constitutional jurisdiction and the state’s authority to regulate mining possession on public lands.


Hicks v. Bell, 3 Cal. 219 (Cal. 1853)