GENERAL33431 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

at this time. 1. The unpatented placer mining claims of the defendants, known as the Rubeck Placer, the Rubeck Placer N2 and the Little Gem Placer, are declared valid as against any right, title or interest claimed by the plaintiff, and are declared senior in priority to any of the plaintiff's claims. 2. The preliminary injunction entered against the defendants is revoked and cancelled. 3. The preliminary injunction to which plaintiff willingly submitted is also revoked and cancelled. In cancelling this injunction, the Court is pre- suming that it is not necessary to enjoin plain- tiff from doing that which is prohibited by operation of law, or that which is prohibited as a natural result of this Order. 4. The Court specifically notes that it makes no findings at this time with regard to plaintiff's Pilot ~2 Quartz. Other issues raised by defendants in their Motion for Judgment, including the questions of costs and damages, are left'to be considered on another day, when the parties haue been provided an opportunity to address these issues more fully in light of the Court's adoption of the Master's findings. In adopting the Master`s findings, the Court has been guided by the general principles of law which govern the Court in'considering reports submitted by masters. Rule 53(e)(2), C.R.C.P. This Court is bound to accept the master's findings of fact unless they are found to be clearly erroneous. Carlson v. Carlson, 178 Colo. 283, 497 P.2d 1006 (1972). Where issues are submitted to a master, the function of the trial court be- comes the same as that of an appellate court, and findings of the master may be overturned only if they are clearly unsup- ported by the evidence in the record. Gelfond v. District Court 180 Colo. 95, 504 P.2d 673 (1972); Sunshine v. Sunshine, 30 Colo.App. 67, 488 P.2d 1131 (1971). The Court has reviewed the testimony and evidence which was presented to the Master, and finds that there is ample support in the record for the findings which were made and en- tered. Plaintiff's Brief in Support of Exceptions generally seems to complain that the Master chose to rely upon the testi- mony of experts summoned by defendants, and not upon the testimo of experts called to testify by plaintiff. Even if this Court - 2 -