Montana Co v. St Louis Mining Milling Co
Decision Date | 05 March 1894 |
Docket Number | No. 167,167 |
Citation | 38 L.Ed. 398,14 S.Ct. 506,152 U.S. 160 |
Parties | MONTANA CO., Limited, et al. v. ST. LOUIS MINING & MILLING CO |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Statement by Mr. Justice BREWER:
The facts in this case are as follows: On November 6, 1889, the defendant in error filed in the district court of the county of Lewis and Clarke, in the then territory of Montana, its petition praying an order for the inspection of certain mines alleged to be the property and in possession of the Montana Company, Limited. Notice was given, the defendant appeared and answered, a hearing was had, and on the 7th of December, 1889, an order for an inspection was made by the judge of said court. This order recited the giving of the notice, the hearing of the application, the production of evidence, and the arguments of counsel; finds that an inspection is necessary for the ascertainment, enforcement, and protection of the rights and interests of the petitioner in the mining claim owned by it; appoints the inspectors, and directs that they make an inspection, examination, and survey. It limits the survey to the vertical planes of the end lines of the petitioners' claim, forbids the removal of any ore or minerals, or entrance to the mine unless accompanied by three representatives of the defendant, and in general makes suitable provisions to prevent any unnecessary interference with the defendant's working of the mine. By subsequent proceedings in the way of contempt, Rawlinson T. Bayliss, the general manager of the Montana Company, Limited, became a party to this litigation, and, upon an adverse termination thereof in the district court, a review was sought in the supreme court of the state, the territory having been admitted into the Union intermediate the filing of the application and the final disposition of the case in the district court. By that court the proceedings were sustained, and on February 4, 1890, it entered a judgment of affirmance. 23 Pac. 510. To review this judgment the defendants sued out a writ of error from this court. The statute under which the proceedings were had is section 376 of the Code of Civil Procedure, (Comp. St. p. 162,) and is in these words:
W. E. Cullen, A. H. Garland, and Heber J. May, for plaintiffs in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 163-164 intentionally omitted] John B. Clayberg, for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice BREWER, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.
The decision of the supreme court of the state ends all inquiry as to a conflict between the statute or the proceedings had thereunder and the state constitution. The only question we may consider is whether there is any violation of the provisions of the federal constitution.
In the petition filed for the writ of error the plaintiffs in error alleged, as the basis thereof, that 'the validity of said statute is drawn in question on the ground of its being repugnant to that provision of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States which prohibits any state from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.'
In the brief it is said that the chief justice of the supreme court of the state, in his opinion, summarized exactly what they insist upon, as follows:
'It is contended that this statute is unconstitutional, and authorizes the inspection, examination, and survey of the mining property of the Montana Company, Limited, upon the petition of the St. Louis Mining and Milling Company of Montana, and before the commencement of any action by the parties. The obnoxious features are pointed out in the brief, and may be summarized under the following heads: This law may be made an instrument of oppression and injustice; the quality of the interest of the petitioner is not defined; no bond is required to be given to secure the payment of the damages which may result to the owner of the property which is invaded; no appeal is allowed from the order of the court or judge in granting the prayer of the petitioner; the power of the court or judge is vast, and can practically confiscate any mine in the state; the innocent owners of mining property are injured without 'due process of law."
Inspection orders like this have been frequently made, some- times under the authority of special statutes, and sometimes by virtue only of the general powers of a court of equity. See the following cases, most of which are collected in the opinion of the supreme court of the state: Earl of Lonsdale v. Curwen, 3 Bligh. 168; Walker v. Fletcher, Id. 172; Blakesley v. Whieldon, 1 Hare, 176; Lewis v. Marsh. 8 Hare, 97; Bennitt v. White-house, 28 Beav. 119; Bennett v. Griffiths, 30 Law J. Q. B. 98; Whaley v. Brancker, 10 Law T. (N. S.) 155; Thornburgh v. Mining Co., 1 Pac. Law Mag. 267; 7 Morr. Min. R. 667, Fed. Cas. No. 13,986; Stockbridge Iron Co. v. Cone Iron Works, 102 Mass. 80; Thomas Iron Co. v. Allentown Min. Co., 28 N. J. Eq. 77.
It was said in Lewis v. Marsh, supra, by the vice chancellor:
And in Bennett v. Griffiths, where leave was asked, not merely for an inspection, but for making a driftway through a wall for the purpose of determining what workings had been done behind it, the court, by Cockburn, C. J., said:
In Thornburgh v. Mining Co., a case heard and determined in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Nevada by the district judge, Alexander W. Baldwin, we find the matter thus discussed:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Klemic v. Dominion Transmission, Inc.
...United States cited Winslow and its discussion of the common-law privilege with approval in Montana Co. v. St. Louis Mining & Milling Co., 152 U.S. 160, 167–68, 14 S.Ct. 506, 38 L.Ed. 398 (1894), in upholding a Montana statute that authorized a court to order a physical inspection of a mine......
-
Franklin v. Ellis
... ... virtue of the authority claimed or conferred. Montana Co ... v. St. Louis Min. & Mil. Co., 152 U.S. 160; In re ... Lambert, ... ...
-
Craig v. O'Rear
... ... 138); to require the construction of a spur ... track ( St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. State, 99 Ark. 1, ... 136 S.W. 938; Union Lime Co. v ... done. Montana Co. v. St. Louis M. & M. Co., 152 U.S ... 160, 14 S.Ct. 506, 38 L.Ed ... ...
-
Planned Parenthood Ass'n of Chicago Area v. Kempiners
...to be tested not by what has been done under it, but what may, by its authority, be done." Montana Co. v. St. Louis Mining and Milling Co., 152 U.S. 160, 170, 14 S.Ct. 506, 509, 38 L.Ed. 398 (1894). Consequently, I would hold that the Illinois Act, by disqualifying from grants all agencies ......
-
Takings, trade secrets, and tobacco: mountain or molehill?
...came to be relied on as precedent for construction of the federal guarantee. See, e.g., Montana Co. v. St. Louis Mining and Milling Co., 152 U.S. 160, 169 (1894); Bridge Co. v. United States, 105 U.S. 470, 502 (1881); see also, e.g., Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 41......