Harris v. Equator Min. & Smelting Co.

Decision Date05 October 1881
Citation8 F. 863
PartiesHARRIS and others v. THE EQUATOR MINING & SMELTING CO.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Colorado

R. S Morrison and Hugh Butler, for plaintiffs.

H. M Teller and E. O. Wolcott, for defendants.

HALLETT D.J.

Defendant applied in the land-office at Central City to enter the Charlotte lode, and plaintiffs made adverse claim to a part of the territory as the Ocean Wave, and brought this suit in support of their claim. The claims overlap near the ends, and the area in dispute is not very large. The Ocean Wave is something more than 10 years older than the other location and a tunnel has been run nearly the whole length of the claim. At the trial there was evidence to show that the lode was discovered in the year 1867, and that work had been done in the tunnel from time to time thereafter, until this suit was brought. Very little ore was taken from the tunnel, but several witnesses testified that the lode was well defined and clearly traceable throughout the length of the tunnel. An attempt was made to show a valid location, according to the law in force in 1867, and plaintiffs also relied on a relocation in 1875. In this plaintiffs were not successful and they were at last forced to rely on possession only in themselves and their grantors as evidence of title. As to the matter of possession, it was shown that the tunnel was worked from time to time, and by different parties, from the date of discovery in 1867 until this suit was brought. Some of the parties in possession, and others who were not in possession, had conveyed parts of the claim, or an interest therein, to other parties named; but, as plaintiffs were unable to connect themselves with these conveyances, they were not received. One conveyance made by a master in chancery, under a decree of court, in Clear Creek county, was, however, received under the circumstances which will now be stated:

In the year 1875, and for some time prior thereto, the Leavenworth Mountain Mining & Tunnelling Company was in possession of the property, and had done some work in the tunnel. They had erected buildings at the mouth of the tunnel, and appeared to have and hold undisputed possession, but whether under claim of title was not shown. In this situation of affairs, one James M. Estelle brought suit against that company in the district court of Clear Creek county, and in June, 1876, obtained a decree for the sale of the premises, to satisfy several amounts of money in the decree mentioned. The premises were sold under the decree to Estelle and Morrison, and in due time a deed was made to Estelle, Morrison having assigned to him his interest in the purchase.

Several plaintiffs claim by descent, and others by purchase from Estelle; and there was evidence at the trial tending to prove that they, or persons in their interest, were in possession of the Ocean Wave at the time the Charlotte lode was located, in October, 1879. Upon these facts a question was presented at the trial, whether the plaintiffs, not having shown a valid location of the Ocean Wave, could claim anything in virtue of their possession of the ground in controversy, if the jury should find that they held...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • United States v. Consolidated Mines & Smelting Co., Ltd., 25164
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • December 12, 1971
    ...a right to the premises in dispute superior to any other claim, except that of the government." Accord, Harris v. Equator Mining & Smelting Co., 8 F. 863 (D. Colo.1881) (dictum); Rocky Mt. Mineral Law Foundation, 2 Am.Law of Mining § 9.9 at 312, n. 12 Thus it appears that the rule upon whic......
  • Buffalo Zinc & Copper Company v. Crump
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • June 28, 1902
    ...Stat. U. S. § 2332; 152 U. S. Rep. 505; 1 Mor. Mining Rep. 522. Appellant had a right to the claims by reason of seven years' possession. 8 F. 863; 17 Cal. 38; 30 Cal. 349. homestead entry of Schmidt was void. 23 Ark. 735; 43 Ark. 469. The appellant was in actual possession. 40 Ark. 192; 41......
  • Humphreys v. Idaho Gold Mines Development Co.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • January 8, 1912
    ...420 Mining Co. v. Bullion Mining Co., 3 Saw. 634, F. Cas. No. 4989, 11 Morr. Min. Rep. 608, 9 Nev. 240. To the same effect, see Harris v. Mining Co., 8 F. 863, 3 McCrary 14, 12 Morr. Min. Rep. 178, 37 L. D. 772, and on Mines, secs. 155 and 357. It seems to us that the provisions of sec. 233......
  • Van Buren v. McKinley
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • November 30, 1901
    ... ... work and they may be used in evidence. (Book v. Justice ... Min. Co., 38 F. 106; Coleman v. Curtis, 12 ... Mont. 301, 30 P. 266; Davidson ... 111; English v. Johnson, 17 Cal. 108, 115, ... 76 Am. Dec. 574; Harris v. Equator Min. Co., 8 F ... 863; 420 Min. Co. v. Bullion Min. Co., 9 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT