Calhoun Gold Mining Company v. Ajax Gold Mining Company
Decision Date | 27 May 1901 |
Docket Number | No. 195,195 |
Citation | 45 L.Ed. 1200,21 S.Ct. 885,182 U.S. 499 |
Parties | CALHOUN GOLD MINING COMPANY, Plff. in Err. , v. AJAX GOLD MINING COMPANY |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. W. E. So Relle for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Joseph C. Helm, Ernest A. Colburn, and Charles H. Dudley for defendant in error.
This action was brought in one of the district courts of the state of Colorado by the defendant in error to recover damages from plaintiff in error for certain trespasses on, and to restrain it from removing ore from ground claimed to be within the boundaries of, the mining claims of defendant in error. The answer of plaintiff in error justified the trespasses and asserted a right to the ore by reason of the ownership of another mining claim and the ownership of a certain tunnel site.
The rights of the parties are based on, and their determination hence involves the construction of, the following sections of the Revised Statutes of the United States, empowering the location of mining claims:
The especial controversy is whether the rights conferred by § 2322 are subject to the right of way expressed in § 2323, and limited by § 2336. Or, in other words, as to the latter section, whether by giving to the oldest or prior location, where veins unite, 'all ore or mineral contained within the space of intersection,' and 'the vein below the point of union,' the prior location takes no more, notwithstanding that § 2322 gives to such prior location 'the exclusive right of possession and enjoyment of all the surface included within the lines' of the location, 'and of all veins, lodes, and ledges throughout their entire depth, the top or apex of which lies inside of such surface lines extended downward vertically.'
The defendant in error denied such effect to §§ 2323 and 2336, and brough this suit, as we have said, against plaintiff in error for damages and to restrain plaintiff in error from removing ore claimed to be within the boundaries of the claims of defendant in error, to which ore defendant in error claimed to be entitled by virtue of §2322. The judgment of the lower court sustained the claim of the defendant in error, and damages were awarded it, and the plaintiff in error was enjoined from further prosecuting work. An appeal was taken to the supreme court of the state, and the judgment was affirmed. Thereupon this writ of error was allowed.
The annexed plat exhibits the relative location of the respective properties of the parties. The Champion location was dropped from the case. There is no controversy as to the validity of the respective locations, none as to the tunnel site or of the steps necessary to preserve it. Indeed, the facts are all stipulated, and that the respective locations are evidenced by patents, the defendant in error being the owner of the Monarch and the Mammoth Pearl, and the plaintiff in error the owner of the Victor Consolidated and the tunnel site. The facts are stated by the supreme court of the state as follows:
[NOTE: MATERIAL SET AT THIS POINT IS NOT DISPLAYABLE (GRAPHIC OR TABULAR MATERIAL)]
The assignments of error present the following propositions which it is stipulated the case involves and to which the decision may be directed:
The third proposition involves the relation of §§ 2322 and 2336. It is first discussed by plaintiff in error, and is given the most prominence in the argument, and we therefore give it precedence in the order of discussion. It presents for the first time in this court the rights of a junior location of a cross vein within the side lines of a senior location under § 2336. Prior to the decision by the supreme court of Colorado in the case at bar that court had decided that the junior location was entitled to all of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Peyton v. Desmond
... ... 51; United ... States v. Homestake Mining Co., 54 C.C.A. 303, 117 F ... 481), it is in ... 413, 20 Sup.Ct. 429, 44 L.Ed. 526; Calhoun, ... etc., Co. v. Ajax, etc., Co., 182 U.S ... ...
-
Lodge 1858, Am. Federation of Government Emp. v. Webb
... ... In each contract, NASA looked to the company that hired the individuals to perform certain ... ground that statutes not in conflict in Calhoun Gold-Min. Co. v. Ajax Gold-Min. Co., 27 Colo. 1, ... ...
-
Baltimore Co v. Kepner
... ... 264, 379, 5 L.Ed. 257 ... 18 Calhoun Gold Mining Co. v. Ajax Gold Mining Co., 182 U.S ... ...
-
Wyers v. Arnold
... ... v. Winsor, 48 ... N.E. 592; Kirkland v. Calhoun, 248 S.W. 302; ... Keith v. Keith, 97 Mo. 223; ... Wiener, 279 U.S. 333; ... Calhoun Co. v. Ajax Co., 182 U.S. 499; Eagan v ... Commissioner, 43 ... ...