James Farrell v. James Lockhart
Decision Date | 18 May 1908 |
Docket Number | No. 170,170 |
Citation | 28 S.Ct. 681,210 U.S. 142,52 L.Ed. 994 |
Parties | JAMES FARRELL, Plff. in Err., v. JAMES M. LOCKHART, Administrator of the Estate of John G. Rhodin, Deceased |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Charles C. Dey and A. L. Hoppaugh for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Wilson I. Snyder, Bismarck Snyder, and George Sutherland for defendant in error.
In the month of February, 1905, James Farrell, plaintiff in error, as owner of the Cliff lode mining claim, situated in the Uintah mining district, Summit county, Utah, made application in the United States land office at Salt Lake City for a patent, and published the notice required by law. The defendant in error, as the administrator of the estate of John G. Rhodin, filed an adverse claim based upon the location by Rhodin of the ground as the Divide lode mining claim. There- after, pursuant to Rev. Stat. § 2326, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 1430, this action was brought in a court of the state of Utah by the administrator of Rhodin, in support of said adverse claim.
In the complaint filed by the administrator the right of Rhodin to the Divide was asserted to have been initiated by a location duly made on January 2, 1903. Farrell in his answer asserted a paramount right by reason of his ownership of the Cliff claim, averring that it had been initiated by a location made on August 1, 1901, seventeen months prior to the location of the Divide by Rhodin. To the affirmative matter pleaded in the answer of Farrell a general denial was interposed, and it was also averred as follows: Plaintiff 'alleges that at the time and date of the attempted location of the said Cliff patented mining claim the ground therein contained was not any part of the open and unclaimed mineral land of the United States, but, on the contrary, the whole thereof, including the point and place of discovery of said alleged Cliff mining claim, was then embraced and included and contained in a valid and subsisting mining claim, called the South Mountain, then and there the property and in the possession of the predecessors of this plaintiff's intestate; and for the reason that the discovery of said alleged Cliff mining claim was not placed upon unoccupied and unclaimed land of the United States, the alleged location based thereon became absolutely void.'
The case was tried by the court, and it was specifically found that the Cliff, the Divide, and the South Mountain claims, as located, covered substantially the same ground, and that the place of discovery of the Cliff was within the boundaries of the alleged South Mountain mining claim. It was further specifically found by the court that, upon the trial of the action,
When it decided the case, the court found that Farrell initiated his ownership of the Cliff claim on August 1, 1901, and performed all the acts required by law in addition to the annual labor required by statute, and that Rhodin initiated on January 2, 1903, his Divide claim. The court decided in favor of the defendant Farrell, and entered a decree adjudging that he was the owner, in possession of the premises in controversy, and entitled to the possession, except as against the paramount title of the United States. The court treated the proof offered on behalf of the plaintiff as to the location of the Sough Mountain claim for the same ground embraced in the Cliff, made a year prior to the location of the latter claim, as immaterial and irrelevant. Plaintiff duly excepted and appealed to the supreme court of the state. The court, in disposing of the appeal, considered solely what it termed the 'decisive question' presented by therecord, viz., 'whether the appellant, as owner of the Divide claim, who, as such, adversed the application for patent, is in position to show and assert that, at the time of the location of the Cliff claim, the ground located was covered by the South Mountain, a then valid and subsisting claim; that the discovery point of the Cliff was within the boundaries of the South Mountain; and that, therefore, the locator of the Cliff did not discover a vein or lode on, or make a valid location of, unappropriated and unoccupied mineral lands of the United States, and because thereof his location is and was void, not only against the locators of the South Mountain, but all the world.' In deciding this question the court deemed that it was called upon to consider and apply the ruling in Lavagnino v. Uhlig, 198 U. S. 443, 49 L. ed. 1119, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 716. Doing so it was recognized that the reasoning in the opinion in that case was broad enough to maintain where, on an adverse claim, the first or senior locator did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bergquist v. West Virginia-Wyoming Copper Company
... ... Soper, 11 Colo. 380; Min. Co. v. Winchell, 83 ... P. 628; Lockhart v. Farrell, (Utah) 86 P. 1077.) ... A ... location based upon a ... ...
- State ex rel. Battle v. Baltimore & O.R. Co., s. 12355
-
United States v. Eaton Shale Co., Civ. A. No. C.-4139.
...with a statutory requirement. Abandonment, on the other hand, is dependent upon the intention of the locator. Farrell v. Lockhart, 210 U.S. 142, 28 S.Ct. 681, 52 L.Ed. 994 (1908). The contest proceedings that were the subject of Gabbs Exploration Co. v. Udall, 114 U.S.App.D.C. 291, 315 F.2d......
-
Kasey v. Molybdenum Corporation of America
...Court has indicated that state statutes of limitation can be applied to unpatented mining interests. In Farrell v. Lockhart, 1908, 210 U.S. 142 at 146, 28 S.Ct. 681 at 683, 52 L.Ed. 994, the Court "Not doubting at all the correctness of the decision in the Lavagnino Case (198 U.S. 443, 25 S......
-
CHAPTER 2 HARDROCK MINERAL DISPUTES (Litigation of Mining Claim, Royalty, and Joint Venture Disputes)
...Lands, § 643; 2 American Law of Mining, § 46.03[6] (2d ed. 1986); Lockhart v. Farrell, 31 Utah 155, 86 P. 1077 (reversed on other grounds, 210 U.S. 142) [cited with approval in dicta in New Mercur Mining Co. v. South Mercur Mining Co., 128 P.2d 269, 272 (Utah 1942)]. When it is asserted tha......
-
CHAPTER 6 TIME FOR PERFORMANCE AND RESUMPTION OF WORK
...[24] Belk v. Meagher, 104 U.S. 279 (1881). [25] Ibid. See also Black v. Elkhorn Mining Co., 163 U.S. 445 (1896); Farrell v. Lockhart, 210 U.S. 142 (1908); Bradford v. Morrison, 212 U.S. 389 (1909). Actual and continuous occupation of a valid mining location is not essential to the preservat......