Argentine Min v. Terrible Min
Decision Date | 27 May 1887 |
Citation | 122 U.S. 478,30 L.Ed. 1140,7 S.Ct. 1356 |
Parties | ARGENTINE MIN. Co. v. TERRIBLE MIN. Co. 1 |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This is an action to recover certain mining ground, being part of what is known as the 'Adelaide Lode,' in Lake county, Colorado, lying within the California mining district. It was originally brought in the name of Frederick S. Van Zandt, who claimed to be the owner of the lode. Subsequently he transferred his interest to a corporation, created under the laws of New York, known as the Terrible Mining Company, and by consent of parties that company was substituted as plaintiff in the action. To the original complaint an answer was filed by the defendant, the Argentine Mining Company, a corporation created under the laws of Missouri, to which a replication was made. To the complaint, amended by the substitution of the Terrible Mining Company as plaintiff, a new answer, substantially the same as the one to the original complaint, was filed, but it does not appear from the record that any replication was made to it. The parties seem to have considered the replication to the original answer as sufficient, for the trial was had without any reference to this omission. Its absence cannot be made in this court, for the first time, a ground of objection to the subsequent proceedings. Nor do we consider counsel of the plaintiff in error as making any point upon the omission, although he calls our attention to it.
The plaintiff below (defendant in error here) is the owner of the Adelaide mining claim. The defendant below (plaintiff in error) is the owner of three other mining claims, called, respectively, the 'Camp Bird,' the 'Pine,' and the 'Charlestown' lode claims. All these claims lie in the same mining district. The Adelaide claim was located in 1876. The other claims were located in 1877. The Adelaide claim occupies on the surface longitudinally a northeast and south-west direction. The Pine, Camp Bird, and Charlestown claims occupy a position nearly north and south, with end lines practically east and west, thus crossing diagonally the Adelaide claim. During the summer of 1880, the defendant below carried its mining operations through its own ground into the Adelaide claim, and it justifies its action in this respect by asserting that in doing so it followed a vein which has its outcrop or apex within the surface of its own locations. It cites section 2322, Rev. St., in support of its position. That section provides that locators of mining claims, previously or subsequently made, on any mineral vein, lode, or ledge on the public domain, to which no adverse right existed on the tenth of May, 1872,
And the defendant requested the court to instruct the jury as follows: This instruction the court refused to give, and the defendant excepted.
The court instructed the jury substantially as follows: That a statute of the state requires that the discoverer, before filing a location certificate, shall first locate his claim by sinking a discovery shaft upon the lode to a depth of at least 10 feet from the lowest part of the rim of the shaft at the surface, or deeper if necessary, to show a well-defined crevice; (2) shall post, at the point of discovery on the surface, a plain sign or notice containing the name of the lode, the name of the location, and the date of the discovery; (3) shall mark the surface boundaries of the claim by six substantial posts; that, to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stewart Mining Co. v. Ontario Mining Co.
... ... (Flagstaff Min. Co ... v. Tarbet, supra; Del Monte Min. v. Last Chance Min. Co., ... supra. See, also, Argentine Co. v. Terrible Min ... Co., 122 U.S. 478, 7 S.Ct. 1356, 30 L.Ed. 1140, 17 Morr ... Min. Rep. 109.) ... In the ... case of Southern ... ...
-
Last Chance Min. Co. v. Bunker Hill & Sullivan Mining & Concentrating Co.
... ... that subject. Flagstaff M. Co. v. Tarbet, 98 U.S ... 463, 25 L.Ed. 253; Argentine M. Co. v. Terrible M ... Co., 122 U.S. 478, 7 Sup.Ct. 1356, 30 L.Ed. 1140; ... Del Monte M. & M. Co. v. Last Chance M. Co., 171 ... U.S. 55, ... ...
-
Alameda Mining Co. v. Success Mining Co.
... ... an angle of 45 degrees with its course. (Stewart Min. Co. v ... Ontario Min. Co., supra; Argentine M. Co. v. Terrible M ... Co., 122 U.S. 478, 30 L.Ed. 1140, 17 Morr. Min. Rep ... 109; Duggan v. Davey, supra.) ... It was ... not the ... ...
-
United States Mining Co. v. Lawson
... ... 418. But ... the rule which we have stated seems to us to be sustained by ... the better reason as well as the weight of authority ... Argentine Mining Co. v. Terrible Mining Co., 122 ... U.S. 478, 484, 7 Sup.Ct. 1356, 30 L.Ed. 1140; Bullion, ... etc., Co. v. Eureka, etc., Co., 5 Utah, 3, ... ...