Heydenfeldt v. Daney Gold and Silver Mining Company

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtDAVIS
PartiesHEYDENFELDT v. DANEY GOLD AND SILVER MINING COMPANY
Decision Date01 October 1876

93 U.S. 634
23 L.Ed. 995
HEYDENFELDT
v.
DANEY GOLD AND SILVER MINING COMPANY.
October Term, 1876

ERROR to the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada.

This is an action of ejectment brought by Heydenfeldt in the District Court of the First Judicial District of Nevada, against the Daney Gold and Silver Mining Company. The case was tried by the court, which found the following facts:——-

Page 635

On the fourteenth day of July, 1868, the State of Nevada issued to one William Webelhuth its patent for the west half of the south-west quarter of section 16, township 16 north, range 21 east (lying in Lyon County, State of Nevada), Mount Diablo base and meridian, containing eighty acres, according to the official plat of the survey of public lands as made by the United States surveyor-general for the district of Nevada; which said patent was recorded in the recorder's office of the county of Lyon on the twenty-fifth day of July, 1868, and was issued by the State authorities, under and by virtue of the statute of Nevada, conveying lands assumed to have been granted to the State by the act of Congress approved March 21, 1864, entitled 'An Act to enable the people of the Territory of Nevada to form a State government upon certain conditions.'

On the eighteenth day of August, 1873, William Webelhuth, by deed of conveyance duly signed, sealed, and acknowledged, conveyed the same premises to one Philip Kitz, which deed was recorded in the recorder's office of the county of Lyon Jan. 13, 1874.

On the ninth day of January, 1874, Philip Kitz, by deed duly signed, sealed, and acknowledged, conveyed the same premises to this plaintiff, which said deed was duly recorded in the recorder's office of the county of Lyon on the same day.

The defendant is in the possession of the premises. The plaintiff, prior to bringing this action, demanded the possession thereof, but the same was refused.

On the second day of March, 1874, the United States, by its proper authorities, granted to the defendant, by its patent, in due and regular form, lot No. 72, embracing a portion of section 16, in township 16 north of range 21 east, Mount Diablo meridian, in the Devil's Gate mining district, in the county of Lyon and State of Nevada, in the district of lands subject to sale at Carson City, embracing thirteen (13) acres and seventy-eight one hundredths (78/100) of an acre, more or less, with the exclusive right of possession and enjoyment of all the land included within the exterior lines of the survey of said premises not expressly excepted, and of two thousand linear feet of Mammoth Lode ledge, vein, or deposit for said two thousand

Page 636

feet therein throughout its entire depth, &c., which said grant by the patent covers and includes the lands and premises sought to be recovered by the plaintiff from the defendant in this action, and which said patent was so issued to the defendant under and by virtue of the act of Congress approved July 26, 1866, entitled 'An Act granting the right of way to ditch and canal owners over the public land, and for other purposes;' the act amendatory thereof, approved July 9, 1870, and the act approved May 10, 1872, entitled 'An Act to promote the development of the mining resources of the United States.'

The land in controversy is mineral land, containing precious metals, and the defendant is in possession and is conducting and carrying on the business of mining thereon, having in the prosecution of mining erected and constructed improvements of the value of over $80,000.

In 1867, and prior to the date of the survey or approval of the survey of section 16, township 16 north, range 21 east, by the United States, the defendant's grantors and predecessors in interest had entered upon the premises described by plaintiff in his complaint for mining purposes, and had claimed and occupied the same in conformity to the laws, customs, and usages of miners in the locality and mining district in which said premises are situated, and were so possessed and engaged in mining thereon when the said land was first surveyed, and when the State of Nevada issued its patent as aforesaid to William Webelhuth.

Thereupon, as conclusions of law, the court found,——

The act of Congress approved March 21, 1864, enabling the people of the Territory of Nevada to form a constitution, &c., under and by virtue of which act the State of Nevada selected the lands, and sold and conveyed the same to the predecessors in interest of the pliantiff, did not constitute a grant in praesenti, but an inchoate, incomplete grant until the premises were surveyed by the United States, and the survey properly approved.

Said survey and the approval thereof not having been made prior to the entry thereon and claim thereto by defendant's predecessors in interest for mining purposes, the same was not

Page 637

by said act of Congress, or in any other manner, ever granted by the United States to the State of Nevada.

The entry of defendant's grantors thereon for mining purposes, and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
104 practice notes
  • Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule
    • United States
    • Federal Register June 03, 2010
    • June 3, 2010
    ...which did not exist prior to his departure, and which could not possibly have been issued); Heyenfeldt v. Daney Gold Mining Co., 93 U.S. 634, 638 (1877) (statutory language expressly referred to past land sales and dispositions, ``but evidently they were not employed in this sense, for no l......
  • Scott v. Latimer, 1,026.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • October 3, 1898
    ...would avoid results of this character. The reason of the law in such cases should prevail over its letter.' In Heydenfeldt v. Mining Co., 93 U.S. 634, it was ruled: a literal interpretation of any part of it would operate unjustly, or lead to absurd results, or be contrary to the evident me......
  • Renewable Fuels Ass'n v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, No. 18-9533
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • January 24, 2020
    ...to the evident meaning of the act taken as a whole, it should be rejected." 948 F.3d 1241 Heydenfeldt v. Daney Gold & Silver Mining Co. , 93 U.S. 634, 638, 23 L.Ed. 995 (1876). We summarize our ruling as follows: The 60-day deadline in 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1) did not render the Biofuels Coal......
  • Standard Oil Co. of California v. United States, No. 8985.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • January 2, 1940
    ...the conclusiveness of any determination by the Land Department was involved or decided in Heydenfeldt v. Daney Gold & Silver Mining Co., 93 U.S. 634, 23 L.Ed. 995; Ivanhoe Mining Co. v. Keystone Consolidated Mining Co., supra; Mullan v. United States, supra; Wisconsin Central R. R. Co. v. P......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
103 cases
  • Scott v. Latimer, 1,026.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • October 3, 1898
    ...would avoid results of this character. The reason of the law in such cases should prevail over its letter.' In Heydenfeldt v. Mining Co., 93 U.S. 634, it was ruled: a literal interpretation of any part of it would operate unjustly, or lead to absurd results, or be contrary to the evident me......
  • Renewable Fuels Ass'n v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, No. 18-9533
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • January 24, 2020
    ...to the evident meaning of the act taken as a whole, it should be rejected." 948 F.3d 1241 Heydenfeldt v. Daney Gold & Silver Mining Co. , 93 U.S. 634, 638, 23 L.Ed. 995 (1876). We summarize our ruling as follows: The 60-day deadline in 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1) did not render the Biofuels Coal......
  • Standard Oil Co. of California v. United States, No. 8985.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • January 2, 1940
    ...the conclusiveness of any determination by the Land Department was involved or decided in Heydenfeldt v. Daney Gold & Silver Mining Co., 93 U.S. 634, 23 L.Ed. 995; Ivanhoe Mining Co. v. Keystone Consolidated Mining Co., supra; Mullan v. United States, supra; Wisconsin Central R. R. Co. v. P......
  • Andrus v. Utah, No. 78-1522
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • May 19, 1980
    ...g., Wisconsin v. Lane, 245 U.S. 427, 432-433, 38 S.Ct. 135, 136-37, 62 L.Ed. 377. 10. See Heydenfeldt v. Daney Gold & Silver Mining Co., 93 U.S. 634, 639-640, 23 L.Ed. 995: "Until the status of the lands was fixed by a survey, and they were capable of identification, Congress reserved absol......
  • 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