McKinley Creek Mining Company v. Alaska United Mining Company
Decision Date | 06 January 1902 |
Docket Number | No. 37,37 |
Citation | 22 S.Ct. 84,46 L.Ed. 331,183 U.S. 563 |
Parties | MCKINLEY CREEK MINING COMPANY et al., Appts. , v. ALASKA UNITED MINING COMPANY et al |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This is a bill in equity brought by the appellee company, who was plaintiff below, to establish title to two placer mining claims, against a like claim of appellant company to the same ground.
The bill alleged that
The bill also alleged ownership of the claims by reason of location, exploration, and discovery of precious metals, and the compliance with the local rules and regulations of the mining district. Also possession of the claims and the erection of val- uable improvements thereon, and forcible entry upon that possession by defendants (appellants) with an attempt and avowed purpose to drive plaintiffs (appellees) therefrom, and unless restrained they would proceed to the execution of said threats. An injunction was prayed for.
The defendants admitted their citizenship, but denied the citizenship of plaintiffs on the ground that the defendants had not sufficient knowledge to form a belief thereto, and traversed in like manner or absolutely the other allegations of the bill, and alleged title by reason of prior discovery by members of the company. The answer also alleged prior possession by members of the company, from which they were dispossessed by the plaintiff, and claimed that as to the controversies thus arising 'defendants are under the law and practice of this court entitled to a jury trial for the trial of the title to said claims and each of them, and to that end and purpose have commenced in this honorable court a suit in ejectment for the trial and determination of the title to said property in an action at law and according to the usage and practice of this court, and until the trial and determination of such trial at law by this honorable court the defendants are entitled to a restraining order against said plaintiff company and its individual members restraining them and each of them from the commission of the wrongful acts herein complained of.'
A temporary injunction was prayed against plaintiffs (appellees).
There was a reply filed to the new matter of the answer and to the cross complaint.
A jury was impaneled to try the case on motion of plaintiffs, no objection being made by defendants, and, after hearing the evidence and receiving instructions from the court, the jury rendered a verdict for plaintiffs, as follows:
The defendants in due time moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, upon the ground that on the evidence the defendants were entitled 'to a judgment in their favor for the possession of the mines and property in controversy.' The motion was denied.
Subsequently defendants moved for a new trial (1) upon the testimony in the cause, the rulings therein and exceptions taken, and upon the pleadings and proceedings in cause No. 967; (2) the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict; (3) error in refusing to give certain instructions requested by defendants (appellants).
The motion was denied, and the following judgment was entered:
'This cause came on to be heard at this term upon the bill, the answer and cross bill of defendants, and the replication thereto of plaintiffs, and the proofs in the case, and upon the request of defendants, duly made by their counsel, Messrs. Winn & Weldon, the issues arising upon said pleadings and proofs were submitted to a jury of good and lawful men, duly selected, impaneled, and sworn, to wit, J. Montgomery Davis and eleven others, who, having heard the said proofs adduced in the case, and having been instructed by the court as to the law, and having heard the argument of counsel, retired in charge of the bailiff to consider of their verdict, and after due deliberation had returned into open court the following verdict, to wit:
* * * * *
'(Signed) J. Montgomery Davis, Foreman.
'Which said verdict was by the court received and ordered recorded, and the findings therein contained upon the issues in said cause were by the court approved and adopted.
'Now, therefore, upon consideration of the said bill, the answer thereto and the cross complaint of said defendants, the replication of plaintiffs, and the said proofs, and by reason of the verdict of the jury thereon, approved and adopted by the court, it is, upon consideration thereof, ordered, adjudged, and decreed as follows, to wit:
A description of the claims followed.
Objection was made to the judgment, and the defendants claimed that the only judgment which could be entered was one 'restraining the defendants from the acts complained of in the bill of complaint pending the trial of cause No. 967, McKinley Creek Min. Co. v. Alaska United Min. Co., which is a suit in ejectment now pending in this court and at issue, the record and files of which are hereby referred to and made a part of this objection.'
From the judgment entered the case is here on appeal.
Messrs. S. M. Stockslager and George C. Heard for appellants.
Messrs. L. T. Michener, W. W. Dudley, J. F. Malony, and J. H. Cobb for appellees.
The assignments of error present for review the rulings of the court upon the admission of testimony, the correctness of the court's instructions to the jury, and the sufficiency of the evidence to justify the judgment.
We may dispose of the rulings on the admission of testimony summarily. They are not precisely indicated by counsel in their brief, and to review them with a detail of the evidence would unduly extend this opinion. It is enough to say that we have examined the evidence and considered the rulings, and do not discover any prejudicial error in the latter. Besides, it is questionable if such rulings are reviewable in an appellate court. Wilson v. Riddle, 123 U. S. 608, 31 L. ed. 280, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 255; Huse v. Washburn, 59 Wis. 414, 18 N. W. 341; Peabody v. Kendall, 145 Ill. 519, 32 N. E. 674.
For an understanding and consideration of the other contentions of appellants it is only necessary to indicate the propositions which the evidence of the parties tended to establish. On the part of the plaintiffs (appellees) the evidence tended to show that Dan. Sutherland, James Hanson, William Chisholm, and Jack Dalton, who compose the appellee company, and Peter Hall, and one Hawes, and C. P. Cahoon, were working at Pleasant camp in Alaska for William Chisholm on and prior to October, 1898. Prospecting on the river Porcupine was resolved on to be done by Hanson, Sutherland, and Cahoon, and the following power of attorney was given to Cahoon:
Know all men by these presents that Peter Hall, William Chisholm, William S. Hawes, of Pleasant camp, British Columbia, have made, constituted, and appointed, and by these presents do make, constitute, and appoint, C. P. Cahoon, of Pleasant camp, British Columbia, our true and lawful attorney, for us and in our names, place, and stead, to locate a mining claim in the territory of Alaska.
In testimony whereof we have hereunto set our hands and seal this 4th day of Oct., A. D. 1898.
Peter Hall. [SEAL.]
Wm. A. Chisholm. [SEAL.]
Wm. S. Hawes. [SEAL.]
Signed, sealed, and delivered in the presence of——
Dan. Sutherland.
J. Hanson.
Provisions were furnished the party, and they started out on the 4th of October, 1898, and met on the creek (subsequently given the name of McKinley) certain members of the appellant company. Gold was discovered, and Cahoon wrote notices of location for Chisholm and Hall upon a snag or stump in the creek, making their claims contiguous, and afterward reported that he had done so, saying that he had staked Chisholm first and Hall next. Chisholm and Hall went to the claims about the 20th of October, and cut trails to them, and did other work upon them; and at...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Worthen v. Sidway
...U.S. 265; 95 U.S. 760; 6 Pet. 29; 12 Wall. 177; 16 Wall. 240; 107 U.S. 402; 130 U.S. 291; 37 P. 480; 95 F. 911; 13 Nev. 442; 160 U.S. 303; 183 U.S. 563; Mont. 235; 2 Idaho 244; 70 F. 455. Appellants forfeited their right to enter and mine the land by the failure to do assessment work. Rev. ......
-
Rundle v. Republic Cement Corp.
...To the same effect see also Wilson v. Triumph Consol. Min. Co., 19 Utah 66, 56 P. 300 302; and McKinley Creek Mining Co. v. Alaska-United Mining Co., 183 U.S. 563, 22 S.Ct. 84, 46 L.Ed. 331. The defendants rely upon the fact that Prof. Lindley, author of 'Lindley on Mines', in his 1914 Thir......
-
Scottish American Mortgage Company Ltd. v. Butler
... ... 662; ... McKinley Creek Co. v. Alaska Mining Co., 183 U.S ... estate in the name of a citizen of the United States, or ... a person who has declared his ... ...
-
Shea v. Nilima
...2 C.C.A. 252; Lone Jack M. Co. v. Megginson, 82 F. 89, 93, 27 C.C.A. 63; Tornanses v. Melsing, 109 F. 710, 47 C.C.A. 596. In McKinley M. Co. v. Alaska M. Co., supra, the court 'The meaning of Manuel v. Wulff is that the location by an alien, and all the rights following from such location, ......
-
Chapter 2 ALIEN OWNERSHIP OF MINERAL INTERESTS
...v. Martinez, 45 F. Supp. 543 (D. Cal. 1942). [26] 30 U.S.C. § 22 (1976). [27] McKinley Creek Mining Co. v. Alaska United Mining Co., 183 U.S. 563, 571-72 (1902); Manuel v. Wulff, 152 U.S. 505 (1894); Herrington v. Martinez, 45 F. Supp. 543, 545 (D. Cal. 1942). [28] McKinley Creek Mining Co.......
-
Chapter 19 MINING CLAIM AND OIL AND GAS LEASEHOLD TITLES-SURFACE INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS
...the location certificate. [46] 5 N.M. 44, 20 P. 789 (1889). [47] 20 P. at 791. [48] McKinley Creek Mining Co. v. Alaska United Mining Co., 183 U.S. 563 (1902). [49] 30 U.S.C. § 28 (1976). [50] Alaska Stat. § 27.10.030 (1976); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 27-203 (1977); Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 2302......
-
Chapter 12 LOCATION OF LODE CLAIMS OVER PLACER CLAIMS
...[94] Tornabene v. Agard, No. 53767, Sup. Ct. for Imperial County, California. [95] McKinley Creek Mining Co. v. Alaska United Mining Co., 183 U.S. 563, 572 (1909). [96] Tornabene, supra note 94, Memorandum of Tentative Decision at 5. [97] The Certificate of Location for a placer claim must ......
-
Chapter 7 CRITICAL ISSUES IN MINING VENTURES: HOW TO FORM A MINERAL MARRIAGE
...§ 22. [121] See, e.g., Shea v. Nilima, 133 F. 209, 215 (9th Cir. 1904). [122] See McKinley Creek Mining Co. v. Alaska United Mining Co., 183 U.S. 563 (1902); Manuel v. Wulff, 152 U.S. 505 (1894); Vevelstad v. Flynn, 230 F.2d 695, 703 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 827 (1956). [123] For ......