by a complaint in such action relate to the title to the real property described in the complaint.

ID. INCONSISTENT FINDINGS OUTSIDE OF ISSUES-IMMATERIAL ISSUES --COLLATERAL ISSUES-ORAL PLEADINGS.-The fact that findings made upon issues not tendered by the pleadings are inconsistent with each other is not ground for reversing the judgment, if no material issues are tendered by the pleadings. Findings upon collateral issues as to probative facts may be material, as having an evidentiary bearing upon material issues tendered by the pleadings, but cannot be material if no such material issues are tendered. There can be no substitution of oral pleadings, of which there is no record, for the written allegations of the parties.

FINDINGS-ADMITTED FACTS.-There is no necessity of a finding upon agreed facts admitted by the pleadings.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Mono County.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

P. Reddy, and C. A. Schuman, for Appellant.

The findings, being contradictory, indefinite, and uncertain, are insufficient to support the judgment. (Learned v. Castle, 78 Cal. 454; Pfister v. Dascey, 65 Cal. 403, 404.) To constitute a cause of action under section 738 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it must be alleged and proved that defendant made an adverse claim before the commencement of the action. (Pfister v. Dascey, 65 Cal. 403, 404.) The conclusions of law are erroneous A locator or patentee of a mining claim is not entitled to any extra lateral right where the vein departs in its strike or course through the side line of his claim. (Iron Silver Mining Co. v. Elgin M. & S. Co., 118 U. S. 196.) The cross-complaint and answer thereto were un(Miller v. Luco, 80 Cal. 257.)

necessary.

Lloyd & Wood, and Richard S. Minor, for Respondent. The cross-complaint and answer thereto raised issues as to the existence, identity, and location of the West Bullion lode location. An immaterial conflict in the findings is not ground of reversal. (Hope v. Barnett, 78 Cal. 9.) An erroneous finding will not warrant reversal,

if the other findings show that the judgment is right. (Duryea v. Boucher, 67 Cal. 141.) Section 738 of the Code of Civil Procedure embraces every description of claim whereby the plaintiffs might be deprived of their property, or its title clouded, or its value depreciated. (Head v. Fordyce, 17 Cal. 149.) Findings should be confined to the issues. (Gould v. Stafford, 77 Cal. 67.) A finding on the adverse claim was immaterial and irrelevant, because admitted by the pleadings. (Swift v. Muygridge, 8 Cal. 445; Anderson v. Black, 70 Cal. 226; Pomeroy v. Gregory, 66 Cal. 572; Bradbury v. Cronise, 46 Cal. 287; Knowles v. Seale, 64 Cal. 377; Hanson v. Fricker, 79 Cal. 283; Withers v. Jacks, 79 Cal. 297.) A finding against an admission of the pleadings must be disregarded. (In re Doyle, 73 Cal. 570, 571; Fisher v. Slattery, 75 Cal. 329.) If a vein crosses a side line on its strike, it becomes an end line. Where the dip is substantially at right angles with its strike, the owner may follow it outside of his vertical side lines extended downward, and confined between vertical planes drawn downward through the end lines extended. (Wolfley v. Hitchcock, 3 Col. 533; Johnson v. Buell, 9 Min. Rep. 502; Flagstaff Co. v. Tarbet, 9 Min. Rep. 607; McCormick v. Nurnes, 9 Min. Rep. 506; Iron S. Co. v. Cheeseman, 9 Min. Rep. 552; Tombstone M. Co. v. Way Up M. Co., 1 Ariz. 426; Eureka Co. v. Richmond Co., 9 Min. Rep. 578, 634; Mining Co. v. Tarbet, 98 U. S. 463.)

VANCLEIF, C.-Action to quiet title to a mining claim in Mono County, brought under section 738 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Each party is a California corporation.

The complaint is in the usual form of complaints under said section, and describes a strip of land 1,188 feet in length, containing two acres, "known as the Ralston No. 1 north mine or vein, being mineral entry No. 48 in the series of the land-office at Bodie, in said

state, designated by the surveyor-general as lot No. 44," of which the plaintiff alleges that it is the owner, and in possession, "with exclusive right of possession and enjoyment of all land included within the exterior lines of said survey, and of 1,188 linear feet of said Ralston 'No. 1 north mine or vein, lode, or deposit, for the length herein before described, throughout its entire depth, although it may enter the land adjoining, and also of all other veins, lodes, ledges, or deposits, throughout their entire depth, the tops or apexes of which lie inside the exterior lines of said survey at the surface extended downward vertically, although such veins, lodes, ledges, or deposits in their downward course may so far depart from a perpendicular as to extend outside the vertical side lines of said survey; that the defendant makes and asserts a claim adverse to the plaintiff for an estate and interest in said real property, mine, mining claim, and location; that the claim of the said defendant is without any right whatever; and that the said defendant has not any right, title, or interest whatever in said lands and premises, or any part thereof."

In its answer, the defendant "admits that plaintiff is the owner, and in possession and entitled to the possession, of that certain mining claim and location described in said complaint as the 'Ralston No. 1 north mine or vein,' but denies that plaintiff is, or ever was, the owner, or that it has, or ever had, the exclusive right of possession or enjoyment of all, or any, of the land described in the complaint, except the surface included within the lines of said location, and all veins, lodes, ledges, if any such there be, throughout their entire depth, the tops or apexes of which lie inside of such surface lines extended downward vertically."

The answer then avers that the defendant owns and possesses a piece of land, being mineral entry No. 46 in the land-office at Bodie, and designated by the surveyorgeneral as lot No. 46, being 1,500 feet in length, and

LXXXIII. CAL.-38

containing 15.44 acres, "commonly known as West Bullion lode," and describes the exterior boundaries thereof. The answer then further alleges that this last-mentioned claim "adjoins the mining claim of the plaintiff described in the complaint, and lies on the easterly side thereof," and that defendant has the exclusive right of possession and enjoyment of all the surface included within the lines of this last-described location, "and of all veins, lodes, and ledges, throughout their entire depth, the tops or apexes of which lie inside of such surface lines exter.ded downward vertically, although such veins, lodes, or ledges may so far depart from a perpendicular line in their course downward as to extend outside the vertical side lines of such surface location; . that within said West Bullion lode mining claim there is a vein commonly known and designated as the west vein of the West Bullion lode location, which vein lies near the western boundary line of said West Bullion lode mining claim, said boundary line being the west side line of said West Bullion lode location, and the east side line of said Ralston No. 1 north mining claim; that the top or apex of said west vein of the said West Bullion lode location lies inside the surface lines of said West Bullion lode location, extended downward vertically; that said west vein of said West Bullion lode 1ocation, at some points thereon, so far departs from a perpendicular in its course downward as to extend outside the vertical side lines of defendant's said surface location, and to and within the vertical side lines of plaintiff's said surface location; that defendant claims the right to follow, work, possess, and enjoy the said west vein of said West Bullion lode location throughout its entire depth, and the right to follow, work, possess, and enjoy all veins, lodes, and ledges, . throughout their entire depth, the tops or apexes of which lie inside the surface lines of defendant's said location, extended downward vertically, although such veins, lodes, or ledges may in their courses

downward extend outside of the vertical side lines of defendant's said mining claim, and into the land and mining location described in plaintiff's complaint herein; that defendant does not make or assert, and has never made or asserted, any claim adverse to plaintiff for any estate or interest in the mine, mining claim, or location described in the complaint, or any claim of right to enter upon the surface of the same, or any claim of right to enter upon any portion thereof, except the right hereinbefore alleged, and claimed to follow, work, possess, and enjoy the veins, lodes, and ledges so belonging to defendant, as aforesaid. And defendant denies that its said claim is without right, and denies that the defendant has not any right, title, or interest in the lands described in said complaint."

At the time of filing its answer the defendant also filed. what it denominates a cross-complaint, which is substantially the same as its answer in all respects, except the addition thereto of the following two paragraphs and the prayer, viz. :

"That plaintiff makes and asserts a claim adverse to defendant for some estate or interest in said West Bullion lode location, and particularly in said west vein thereof, and claims and asserts that the same, or some part thereof, is part of the said mine or mining claim of plaintiff.

"That the claim of said plaintiff is without any right whatever, and the said plaintiff has no right, title, or interest whatever in said West Bullion lode mining claim, or in said west vein lode of said West Bullion lode location, or any part thereof."

Then follows the usual prayer in complaints to quiet title.

In plaintiff's answer to the cross-complaint it is admitted "that defendant is the owner and in possession of that certain mining claim and location described in said cross-complaint as the 'West Bullion lode'; but denies