Kendall v. San Juan Silver Min
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | FIELD |
| Citation | 12 S.Ct. 779,144 U.S. 658,36 L.Ed. 583 |
| Parties | KENDALL et al. v. SAN JUAN SILVER MIN. Co |
| Decision Date | 25 April 1892 |
[Statement of Case from pages 658-660 intentionally omitted]
Page 660
E. T. Wells and R. T. McNeal, for plaintiffs in error.
Page 661
A. T. Britton and A. B. Browne, for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice FIELD delivered the opinion of the court.
The defendant, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Colorado, in October, 1880, applied to the proper land office in that state for a mineral patent for a lode claim
Page 662
known as the 'Titusville Lode,' in San Juan county, which was 1,500 feet in length by 300 feet in width. Within the time prescribed by statute, and during the month, the appellants here, Kendall and others, filed in the same land office an adverse claim for a portion of the premises of which the defendant desired to obtain a patent, asserting a prior and superior right to the same, as part of a lode known as 'Bear Lode,' which they had discovered on the 3d of September, 1872, and upon which they had sunk a discovery shaft, and performed the several acts required to perfect a mineral location under the laws of the United States and the local rules and customs of miners. Within 30 days thereafter they brought the present action under section 2326 of the Revised Statutes, to determine, as between the parties, the right of possession to the disputed premises, the issue of a patent for the same being dependent upon such determination. In their complaint they allege the performance of the labor required, and all other acts necessary to preserve the lode from forfeiture. That lode, as originally located, extended 1,500 feet in length and 100 feet on each side of the center of the vein. In October, 1878, the locators filed an additional certificate of location in the local land office, claiming 150 feet on each side of the center. And they aver that the Titusville lode, claimed by the defendant corporation, is a junior location, and includes in length 1,200 feet of the surface ground of the Bear lode, and in width covers more than the south half of the surface ground for the 1,200 feet.
The defendant, in its answer, denies that the ground in controversy comprised part of the unappropriated public domain of the United States, and that it was open to location on the 3d day of September, 1872, as set forth by the plaintiffs, and alleges that at that date the ground embraced a portion of a certain tract of land which, by treaty between the United States and certain confederated bands of the Ute Indians in Colorado, concluded March 2, 1868, and proclaimed on the 6th of November of the same year, had been reserved for the use and occupancy of the Indians, and that the Indian title to the
Page 663
tract was not extinguished until March, 1874. 15 St. p. 619. The answer also alleges that the Titusville lode claim was located on the 29th day of August, 1874; that all acts were done...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Andrus v. Shell Oil Company, 78-1815
...be distinctly marked on the ground so that its boundaries can be readily traced." 30 U.S.C. § 28; Kendall v. San Juan Silver Mining Co., 144 U.S. 658, 12 S.Ct. 779, 36 L.Ed. 583 (1892). If the requirements of the mining law are satisfied, the land may be patented for $2.50 per acre. 30 U.S.......
-
Childers v. Dallas Police Dept., CA3-76-0469-F.
...on race, religion, national origin or alienage have been considered suspect. In Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 93 S.Ct. 1764, 36 L.Ed. 583 (1973), four members of the Supreme Court found sex to be a suspect class. Since the Supreme Court has not definitely ruled that gender is a sus......
-
Republic Natural Gas Co v. State of Oklahoma, 134
...9 S.Ct. 511, 32 L.Ed. 906; Butte City Water Co. v. Baker, 196 U.S. 119, 25 S.Ct. 211, 49 L.Ed. 409; Kendall v. San Juan Silver Mining Co., 144 U.S. 658, 12 S.Ct. 779, 36 L.Ed. 583; Clason v. Matko, 223 U.S. 646, 32 S.Ct. 392, 56 L.Ed. 588. 26 Head v. Amoskeag Mfg. Co., 113 U.S. 9, 5 S.Ct. 4......
-
Rasmussen Drilling, Inc. v. Kerr-McGee Nuclear Corp., KERR-M
...Hunter, supra. Even so, Rasmussen contends that the position he presses is not without support, relying on Kendall v. San Juan Mining Co.,144 U.S. 658, 12 S.Ct. 779, 36 L.Ed. 583 (1892). That reliance is misplaced. In Kendall, the defendant was an intervening locator who had filed location ......
-
Andrus v. Shell Oil Company, 78-1815
...be distinctly marked on the ground so that its boundaries can be readily traced." 30 U.S.C. § 28; Kendall v. San Juan Silver Mining Co., 144 U.S. 658, 12 S.Ct. 779, 36 L.Ed. 583 (1892). If the requirements of the mining law are satisfied, the land may be patented for $2.50 per acre. 30 U.S.......
-
Childers v. Dallas Police Dept., CA3-76-0469-F.
...on race, religion, national origin or alienage have been considered suspect. In Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 93 S.Ct. 1764, 36 L.Ed. 583 (1973), four members of the Supreme Court found sex to be a suspect class. Since the Supreme Court has not definitely ruled that gender is a sus......
-
Republic Natural Gas Co v. State of Oklahoma, 134
...9 S.Ct. 511, 32 L.Ed. 906; Butte City Water Co. v. Baker, 196 U.S. 119, 25 S.Ct. 211, 49 L.Ed. 409; Kendall v. San Juan Silver Mining Co., 144 U.S. 658, 12 S.Ct. 779, 36 L.Ed. 583; Clason v. Matko, 223 U.S. 646, 32 S.Ct. 392, 56 L.Ed. 588. 26 Head v. Amoskeag Mfg. Co., 113 U.S. 9, 5 S.Ct. 4......
-
Rasmussen Drilling, Inc. v. Kerr-McGee Nuclear Corp., KERR-M
...Hunter, supra. Even so, Rasmussen contends that the position he presses is not without support, relying on Kendall v. San Juan Mining Co.,144 U.S. 658, 12 S.Ct. 779, 36 L.Ed. 583 (1892). That reliance is misplaced. In Kendall, the defendant was an intervening locator who had filed location ......