Anaconda Co. v. Whittaker, 14925
| Decision Date | 12 May 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 14925,14925 |
| Citation | 610 P.2d 1177,37 St.Rep. 902,188 Mont. 66 |
| Parties | The ANACONDA COMPANY, a corporation, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Morton K. WHITTAKER, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Alexander & Baucus, Great Falls, for defendant and appellant.
Anderson, Brown, Gerbase, Cebull & Jones, Billings, P. J. Brophy, Denver, Colo., for plaintiff and respondent.
This is an action involving the conflicting mining claims of Morton K. Whittaker and the Anaconda Company. Whittaker appeals from a judgment entered in the District Court, Sixth Judicial District, Sweet Grass County, in favor of Anaconda. Under the judgment, Anaconda is entitled to the possession and enjoyment of the area covered by its Eve 62 and Eve 69 mining claims which conflict with Whittaker's Pine mining claim. Whittaker also appeals from a denial of his motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
Whittaker located the Pine claim on October 1, 1950. Anaconda, on the other hand, is a successor in interest to the Eve 62 and Eve 69 claims which were located on June 10, 1968, by R. Davidson Piper. Piper was employed by Anaconda to supervise engineering crews in locating and staking approximately 79 mining claims generally known as the Eve group claims. These claims were located in an area about four to five miles in length beginning on the Boulder River and moving up the slope of Chrome Mountain. Piper signed the certificates of location for Eve 62 and Eve 69 verifying he was the locator of the two mining claims and had complied with the legal requirements for locating and recording mining claims. Section 50-701, et seq., R.C.M.1947. Piper's certificates were based upon information provided to him by the engineers and geologists of Anaconda. Under an agreement with Anaconda, Piper was to transfer to Anaconda any mining claim Piper located in Montana.
In June 1976, Whittaker applied to the Bureau of Land Management for a patent to the Pine claim. Anaconda filed an adverse claim with that agency and brought this cause to determine its right of possession to the area covered by its Eve 62 and Eve 69 mining claims.
The jury trial of this cause began on February 26, 1979. Following Anaconda's case-in-chief, Whittaker moved for a directed verdict on the grounds that Anaconda had failed to establish a valid mining location for Eve 62 and Eve 69 and therefore, lacked standing to challenge Whittaker's patent application. The motion was taken under advisement, and Whittaker was required to present evidence regarding the validity of the Pine claim.
The cause was submitted to the jury on special interrogatories, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Anaconda. Under the verdict, the jury found Whittaker had not abandoned the Pine claim but had subjected the claim to forfeiture. The jury further found that Whittaker had in fact forfeited the Pine claim when Anaconda validly located the Eve 62 and Eve 69 claims in 1968. Accordingly, judgment was entered in favor of Anaconda.
Whittaker moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, alleging the same grounds as were alleged for his motion for a directed verdict. The District Court did not rule on the motion, resulting in the motion being deemed denied. Rules 50(b) and 59(d), M.R.Civ.P. Whittaker now appeals.
The sole issue upon appeal is whether sufficient evidence supports the jury's verdict that Anaconda validly located the Eve 62 and Eve 69 mining claims. Having carefully examined the briefs of the parties and the record in this cause, we hold there is insufficient evidence to support the jury verdict.
At the outset, we note that the validity of mining locations must be judged by the law in effect at the time of the attempted location. Therefore, we judge the validity of Anaconda's attempts to locate its Eve 62 and Eve 69 mining claims under section 50-701, R.C.M.1947, as it existed prior to the 1971 amendments.
Our function in reviewing the issue presented is to determine whether substantial credible evidence in the record supports the jury's verdict. We must view the evidence in a light most favorable to Anaconda, the prevailing party below, and where the record presents conflicting evidence, resolved by the jury, this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bottrell v. American Bank
...conflicting evidence which has been resolved by the jury, this Court is precluded from disturbing the verdict. Anaconda Company v. Whittaker (1980), 188 Mont. 66, 610 P.2d 1177. When the evidence is in conflict, we can only review testimony for the purpose of determining whether there is an......
-
Britton v. Farmers Ins. Group (Truck Ins. Exchange)
...facts, as we must, in a light favorable to Britton since the jury agreed with his contentions of fact. Anaconda Company v. Whittaker (1980), 188 Mont. 66, 610 P.2d 1177. However, FIG, in the trial of the cause, was able to put before the jury the following information that FIG contended pro......
-
Weinberg v. Farmers State Bank of Worden
...conflicting evidence which has been resolved by the jury, this Court is precluded from disturbing the verdict. Anaconda Company v. Whittaker (1980), 188 Mont. 66, 610 P.2d 1177. When the evidence is in conflict, we can only review testimony for the purpose of determining whether there is an......
-
Mines Mgmt., Inc. v. Fus
...mineral deposit on that claim. Tags Realty, LLC v. Runkle , 2015 MT 166, ¶ 15, 379 Mont. 416, 352 P.3d 616 ; Anaconda Co. v. Whittaker , 188 Mont. 66, 69, 610 P.2d 1177, 1179 (1980). Until such discovery is made, there is no right of possession to any definite portion of the public mineral ......
-
CHAPTER 2 HARDROCK MINERAL DISPUTES (Litigation of Mining Claim, Royalty, and Joint Venture Disputes)
...672 P.2d 1119 (1983); Alyeska Pipeline v. Anderson, 629 P.2d 512 (Alaska 1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1099 (1981); Anaconda v. Whittaker, 188 Mont. 66, 610 P.2d 1177 (1980); Geomet Exploration v. Lucky McUranium, 124 Ariz. 55, 601 P.2d 1339 (1979), cert. granted, 447 U.S. 920 (1980), cert.......