St Louis Mining Milling Company of Montana v. Montana Mining Company
| Decision Date | 02 May 1904 |
| Docket Number | No. 250,250 |
| Citation | 48 L.Ed. 953,24 S.Ct. 654,194 U.S. 235 |
| Parties | ST. LOUIS MINING & MILLING COMPANY OF MONTANA and William Mayger, Appts. , v. MONTANA MINING COMPANY, Limited |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This was a suit brought by the appellee (hereinafter called the Montana company) against the appellants (hereinafter called the St. Louis company) in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Montana, for an injunction restraining the further prosecution of a tunnel. The facts were agreed upon, and are substantially that the Montana company was the owner and in possession of the Nine Hour lode mining claim under a patent from the United States, on a location made under the mining acts of 1872 and acts amendatory thereof; that the St. Louis company was the owner of the St. Louis lode mining claim, holding the same under a similar title. In the St. Louis claim is a vein other than the discovery vein, having its apex within the surface limits of the St. Louis claim, but on its dip passing out of the side line of the St. Louis claim into the Nine Hour claim. The tunnel was 260 feet underground, running from the St. Louis into the Nine Hour claim and for the purpose of reaching the vein on its descent through the latter. It was run horizontally through country rock, and between the east line of the St. Louis claim and the vein above referred to will not intersect any other vein or lode. The St. Louis company did not propose to extend the tunnel beyond the point at which it would intersect the vein above referred to, and simply proposed to use this cross-cut tunnel in working and mining said vein. The circuit court, upon the facts agreed to, enjoined the further prosecution of the tunnel. That injunction was sustained by the circuit court of appeals for the ninth circuit (51 C. C. A. 530, 113 Fed. 900) from whose decision the St. Louis company has brought the case to this court.
Messrs. E. W. Toole and Thomas C. Bach for appellants.
Mr. W. E. Cullen for appellee.
Statement by Mr. Justice Brewer:
The situation and the question can be easily presented to the mind by considering the significant lines as lines of a right-angled triangle; the vein descending on its dip being the hypothenuse, the tunnel the base line, and the boundary between the two claims the side line of the triangle. The St. Louis company, being the owner of the vein, may pursue and appropriate that vein on its course downward, although it extends outside the vertical side lines of its claim and beneath the surface of the Nine Hour lode claim. Such is the plain language of § 2322, Rev. Stat. (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 1425) which grants to locators 'the exclusive right of possession and enjoyment of all the surface included within the lines of their locations, and of all veins, lodes, and ledges throughout their entire depth, the top or apex of which lies inside of such surface lines extended downward vertically, although such veins, lodes, or ledges may so far depart from a perpendicular in their course downward as to extend outside the vertical side lines of such surface locations.'
In other words, it has a right to the hypothenuse of the triangle. May it also occupy and use the base line? Is it, in pursuing and appropriating this vein, confined to work in or upon the vein, or is it at liberty to enter upon and appropriate other portions of the Nine Hour ground in order that it may more conveniently reach and work the vein which it owns? Its contention is that the mining patent conveys title to only the surface of the ground and the veins which go with the claim, and that the balance of the underground territory is open to anyone seeking to explore for mineral, or at least may be taken possession of by one other than the owner of the claim for the purpose of conveniently working a vein which belongs to him. The question may be stated in another form: Does the patent for a lode...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stewart Mining Co. v. Ontario Mining Co.
... ... the patent. ( Work Min. & Milling Co. v. Dr. Jack Pot ... Mining Co., 194 F. 620; ... The respondent, ... the Ontario Mining Company, took advantage of the discovery ... and ... 540, 18 Morr. Min ... Rep. 113; St. Louis Co. v. Montana Co., 194 U.S. 235, 24 ... S.Ct ... ...
-
Gillmor v. Blue Ledge Corp.
...that a mining patent includes the surface rights finds support in caselaw. In St. Louis Mining & Milling Co. of Montana v. Montana Mining Co., Ltd., 194 U.S. 235, 24 S.Ct. 654, 48 L.Ed. 953 (1904), the United States Supreme Court determined that, at least in that case, "the patent convey[ed......
-
Last Chance Min. Co. v. Bunker Hill & Sullivan Mining & Concentrating Co.
... ... Hill & Sullivan Mining & Concentrating Company will be ... referred to as the 'Bunker Hill ... Comp. St. 1901, p. 1425). The St ... Louis Mining and Milling Company of Montana et al. v ... ...
-
Alameda Mining Co. v. Success Mining Co.
... 161 P. 862 29 Idaho 618 ALAMEDA MINING COMPANY, a Corporation, Respondent, v. SUCCESS MINING ... 540, 18 Morr. Min. Rep. 113; St. Louis ... Co. v. Montana Co., 194 U.S. 235, 24 S.Ct ... ...
-
The 1872 mining law and the 20th century collide: a rediscovery of limits on mining rights in wilderness areas and national forests.
...into the territory of his neighbor and appropriate it to his own use."). (13) Saint Louis Mining & Milling Co. v. Montana Mining Co., 194 U.S. 235, 239 (1904); 2 AMERICAN LAW OF MINING, supra note 11, [sections] (14) "Congress having prescribed the conditions upon which extralateral rig......
-
CHAPTER 11 EXTRALATERAL RIGHTS IN THE 21ST CENTURY: CONSIDERATIONS FOR TITLE EXAMINATION
...Co. v. United Eastern Mining Co.. 209 P. 283, 287 (Ariz. 1922). [44] Id. at 291 (citing St. Louis Min. & Milling Co. v. Montana Min. Co., 194 U.S. 235 (1904)). This rule, which is repeated in many other cases, requires that the miner pursuing extralateral rights generally stay within the li......