Iron Silver Min. Co. v. Cheesman

• Decision Date: 27 May 1881
• Citation: 8 F. 297
• Parties: IRON SILVER MINING CO. v. CHEESMAN and others.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Colorado

8 F. 297

IRON SILVER MINING CO. v. CHEESMAN and others.

United States Circuit Court, D. Colorado.

May 27, 1881

In 1874 A. B. Wood located the Lime lode and mining claim, situated in Lake county. The location was made upon a body of mineralized limestone, not upon a lode or vein, as defined by the statute. In 1877, upon proceedings had, a patent was issued for the claim to its owners. In the fall of 1877 George Nyce and others located what was called the Smuggler claim and lode. It was situated to the east of, and adjoining, the Lime, and before locating it the discoverers sunk a shaft to the depth of 40 feet, and at the bottom found a large body of mineral. After the location of the Smuggler, its owners commenced running inclines and drifts, and in them also developed a considerable body of mineral. After the discovery of the mineral in the Smuggler claim, the owners of the Lime run inclines from the Lime claim into and upon the Smuggler claim, and connected them with the Smuggler workings. Thereupon the Iron Silver Mining Company, which previously had purchased the Lime claim commenced their action against defendants, who had become the owners of the Smuggler, to eject them from the body of mineral they had discovered and developed within the Smuggler location, claiming that it was the lode or vein of mineral which had its apex within the Lime claim. This the Smuggler owners disputed, claiming that there was no vein or lode within the Lime ground; that whatever mineral was there was not in place, but had been removed to that point from some other locality; and that it was found in a formation so broken and jumbled that there was neither foot nor hanging walls to it. It was upon this disputed question of fact that the trial was had, and the instructions of the court were directed to its elucidation, and were as follows.

G. G Symes and Jonas Seeley, for plaintiff.

Markham Paterson, Thomas & Campbell, and J. B. Belford, for defendants.

HALLETT D.J.

I presume, gentlemen, that you feel some relief that you are approaching the time when you will be relieved from the consideration of this case. You have given careful attention to the evidence produced, and I presume that you are disposed to give it the consideration which the importance ascribed to the case by the parties seems to demand. If we are to believe some of the witnesses who have testified here, the property is of very little value indeed. But the elaborate preparations that have been made for the trial of the case seem to contradict that statement. At least, the opinion of the parties must be that the claim is of some value, and it seems to me that perhaps the value may be, (I do not state this as a matter that is of any importance in your consideration of the case,) but perhaps the value of it may be in the minds of the parties as relating to other territory which may lie to the east of it. Whoever may triumph here on the principles which have been recognized in respect to these lodes, it is possible that other controversies may arise in respect to other territory lying to the east of both claims. And as to that matter, whether it is true or not, it is not very important which one of these parties shall succeed in this controversy.

Something of an appeal was made to you by counsel as to the wrong that would be done if either of these parties should be encouraged to maintain the view that this lode may be pursued beyond the side line of the claim. Whichever of these parties may triumph, it is possible that that view may be asserted by the successful party hereafter against other parties who are not involved in this controversy. But all that is of no importance here, nor is it matter for your consideration at this time.

While adverting to matters which are not important for consideration, I may with propriety mention some other matters. It is not a question of any importance whether this claim is or is not a valuable one. It is the purpose of the law to decide all controversies on the same principles and by the same rules, whatever values may be involved. Perhaps, as we are constituted, it may not be possible to exclude from our minds all consideration of the importance of a controversy in determining it, but we ought to do so. Everybody in the administration of the law should do so, for that is the method of the law, and the way in which we should proceed to the determination of every question which may arise between parties. We should determine it upon a principle and by a rule which may reach everybody and apply to all, without reference to the circumstances that may be in issue in the case which is under consideration. And in that view it is not a matter of importance whether one or the other of these parties is entitled to sympathy, or to a more favorable consideration than the other; nor is it a question whether one or the other of the parties is a corporation. Some allusion has been made by counsel, as I think improperly, to the fact that one of these parties is a corporation. It has been said the power of corporations is growing in this country and becoming oppressive, particularly that of railroad corporations and telegraph companies; and perhaps we may concede some of these things. But, whether we do so or not, we should not make any different rules for corporations that those which apply to individuals in the courts, at least until the law shall authorize us to do so; not until competent...