Chambers v. Harrington
| Decision Date | 14 April 1884 |
| Citation | 28 L.Ed. 452,111 U.S. 350,4 S.Ct. 428 |
| Parties | CHAMBERS and others v. HARRINGTON and others. 1 |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
S. Shellabarger and J. M. Wilson, for appellant.
J. G. Sutherland and John R. McBride, for appellees.
This is an appeal from the supreme court of the territory of Utah. The case has its origin in a proceeding under sections 2325 and 2326 of the Revised Statutes, to obtain a patent for mineral lands of the United States. The first of these sections requires that, after a discovery of a mine or lode, and the steps required to mark out and assert a claim to it, if the discovered desires a patent he shall give notice of that fact by a publication for 60 days, the nature of which is such as to call the attention to the proceeding of any one having an adverse claim. Section 2326 requires of any person desiring to contest the claimant's right, to file his adverse claim in the land-office, with the particulars of it, under oath. It then declares: 'It shall be the duty of the adverse claimant, within thirty days after filing his claim, to commence proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction to determine the question of the right of possession, and prosecute the same with reasonable diligence to final judgment, and a failure to do so shall be a waiver of his adverse claim.' It is then provided that, on filing a copy of the judgment roll in the case with the register of the land-office, and making the other requisite showing, a patent shall issue to the successful party in the litigation.
It is now urged that such a judgment is not subject to review in this court, and the appeal should be dismissed. But it is apparent that the statute requires a judicial proceeding in a competent court. What is a competent court is not specifically stated, but it undoubtedly means a court of general jurisdiction, whether it be a state court or a federal court; and as the very essence of the trial is to determine rights by a regular procedure in such court, after the usual methods, which rights are dependent on the laws of the United States, we see no reason why, if the amount in controversy is sufficient in a case tried in a court of the United States, or the proper case is made on a writ of error to a state court, the judgment may not be brought to this court for review, as in other similar cases. Belk v. Meagher, 104 U. S. 279.
The only question on the merits of the case requiring much attention arises out of the requirement of section 2324 of the Revised Statutes, that some work should be done on every claim, in every year, from the date of the discovery until the issue of the patent. The language of the statute on the subject is this: It then provides for proceedings in favor of co-owners who do their work or pay for it, against those who do not, to forfeit their interest in the claim. This latter clause clearly shows that one meaning of the phrase 'held in common' is where there are more owners of the claim than one, while the use of the word 'claims' held in common, on which work done on one of such claims shall be sufficient, shows that there must be more than one claim so held, in order to make the case where work on one of them shall answer the statute as to all of them. It is not difficult, in looking at the policy of the government in regard to its mineral lands, to understand the purpose of this provision. For many years after discovery of the rich deposits of gold and silver in the public lands of the United States, millions of dollars' worth of these metals were taken out by industrious miners without any notice or attention on the part of the government. The earliest legislation by congress simply recognized the obligatory force of the local rules of each mining locality in regard to obtaining, transferring, and identifying the possession of these parties. Later, provision was made for acquiring title to the land where these deposits were found, and prescribing rules for the location and identification of claims, and securing their possession against trespass by others than their discoverers. But in all this legislation to the present time, though by appropriate proceedings and the payment of a very small sum a legal title in the form of a patent may be obtained for such mines, the possession under a claim established according to law is fully recognized by the acts of congress, and the patent adds little to the security of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Backes v. Bernhardt
...with the knowledge that the Government retains substantial regulatory power over those interests."); Chambers v. Harrington , 111 U.S. 350, 353, 4 S.Ct. 428, 28 L.Ed. 452 (1884) ; see also United States v. Shumway , 199 F.3d 1093, 1102-03 (9th Cir. 1999) (stating that, until a patent issues......
-
Ranchers Exploration and Development Co. v. Anaconda Co.
...(1902). 11 Michael v. Mills, 22 Colo. 439, 45 P. 429 (1896); Harrington v. Chambers, 3 Utah 94, 1 P. 362 (1882), aff'd 111 U.S. 350, 4 S.Ct. 428, 28 L.Ed. 452 (1884). Compare rule concerning annual assessment work: 30 U.S.C. § 28 et seq.; Parker v. Belle Fourche Bentonite Products Co., 64 W......
-
Worthen v. Sidway
...244; 70 F. 455. Appellants forfeited their right to enter and mine the land by the failure to do assessment work. Rev. Stat. U. S. § 2324; 111 U.S. 350; 65 Cal. 565; 3 Utah 159; 7 Col. 178. Appellants failed to resume work in 1899. 104 U.S. 279; 16 Mont. 234; 21 L. D. 446; 127 U.S. 471; 1 M......
-
James Donnelly v. United States
...Min. Rep. 370. See also Jennison v. Kirk, 98 U. S. 453, 457, 25 L. ed. 240, 242, 4 Mor. Min. Rep. 504; Chambers v. Harrington, 111 U. S. 350, 353, 28 L. ed. 452, 453, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 428; Hammer v. Garfield Min. & Mill. Co. 130 U. S. 291, 299, 32 L. ed. 964, 967, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 548, 16 Mor......
-
CHAPTER 2 CHARACTER OF THE LABOR OR IMPROVEMENTS
...[17] Morgan v. Sorenson, 3 Utah 2d 428, 286 P.2d 229 (1955). [18] Cole v. Ralph, 252 U.S. 286 at 307 (1920). [19] Chambers v. Harrington, 111 U.S. 350 at 353 (1884). [20] McCulloch v. Murphy, 125 F. 147 (C.C. Nev. 1903). [21] St. Louis Smelting and Ref. Co. v. Kemp, 104 U.S. 636 at 655 (188......
-
Table of Cases
...L. Ed. 2d 523 (1976): 11.2(3)(d) Carey v. Pipuhus, 435 U.S. 247, 98 S. Ct. 1042, 55 L. Ed. 2d 252 (1978): 17.3(2) Chambers v. Harrington, 111 U.S. 350, 4 S. Ct. 428, 28 L. Ed. 452 (1884): 13.4(6) City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal, Inc., 411 U.S. 624, 93 S. Ct. 1854, 36 L. Ed. 2d 547 ......
-
CHAPTER 3 PLACE OF PERFORMANCE
...at 30 U.S.C. § 28 (1964). [19] 104 U.S. 636 (1882). [20] Id., 654-55. [21] Jackson v. Roby, 109 U.S. 440 (1883). [22] Id., 444-45. [23] 111 U.S. 350 (1884). [24] Id., 353. [25] 18 Colo. 505, 508, 33 P. 373, 374 (1893). In accord: Brethour v. Clack, 31 Ariz. 24, 250 P. 254 (1926); Little Dor......
-
§ 13.4 - Mining on Federal Public Lands
...Court has stated that claims for which group assessment work has been performed must be contiguous. See, e.g., Chambers v. Harrington, 111 U.S. 350, 4 S. Ct. 428, 28 L. Ed. 452 (1884). This language, however, is considered dicta, and other courts allow assessment work to qualify even if per......