St Louis Mining Milling Co v. Montana Min Co
| Decision Date | 31 October 1898 |
| Docket Number | No. 305,305 |
| Citation | 171 U.S. 650,19 S.Ct. 61,43 L.Ed. 320 |
| Parties | ST. LOUIS MINING & MILLING CO. et al. v. MONTANA MIN. CO |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This was a suit for specific performance, brought by the Montana Mining Company against the St. Louis Mining & Milling Company of Montana and Charles Mayger in the district court of the First judicial district of the state of Montana, in and for the county of Lewis and Clarke.
The complaint alleged that: On March 7, A. D. 1884, plaintiff's predecessors in interest, Robinson, Huggins, Sterling, De Camp, and Eddy, were the owners of, and in possession, and legally entitled to the use, occupation, and possession, of, a certain portion of the Nine Hour Lode & Mining Claim, which embraced in all an area of 12,844.5 feet, together with the minerals therein contained.
That Mayger applied to the United States land office at Helena for a patent to the St. Louis lode mining claim, owned by him, and that in the survey he caused to be made of his claim he included that part of the Nine Hour lode mining claim described in the complaint, whereupon an action was commenced by Robinson and Huggins against Mayger in the district court of the Third judicial district of the then territory of Montana to determine the right to the possession of the particular premises. That on said 7th of March, for the purpose of settling and compromising that action, and settling and agreeing upon the boundary lines between the Nine Hour lode mining claim and the St. Louis lode mining claim, Mayger made, executed, and delivered to Robinson, Huggins, and Sterling a certain bond for a deed, whereby, in consideration of the compromise and settlement of the action and the withdrawal of the protest and adverse claim, he covenanted and agreed that when he should obtain a patent as applied for, he would, on demand, make, execute, and deliver to Robinson, Huggins, and Sterling, or their assigns, a good and sufficient deed for the premises described in the complaint; and thereupon Robinson, Huggins, and Sterling dismissed their said action, withdrew their adverse claim, and performed all of the conditions of the bond on their part.
That Mayger then proceeded with his application, and obtained a patent, but that he gave no notice to plaintiff, or any of its predecessors in interest, of the obtaining of the patent, until some time in November, 1889.
That when the bond for a deed was executed plaintiff's predecessors in interest were in possession of the premises, and have ever since been and are yet in possession thereof, holding and using the same as a part of the Nine Hour lode claim. That by mesne conveyances the title to this claim, including the portion in dispute in this suit, had come to plaintiff. That it is entitled to a conveyance of the premises from Mayger. That Mayger, on or about June 10, 1893, assumed to convey said piece of ground to the St. Louis Mining & Milling Company, which then had full knowledge and notice of the making, execution, and delivery of the bond for a deed by Mayger, and of the rights and equities of the Montana Mining Company thereunder. That the St. Louis Company has instituted a number of suits in the circuit court of the United States, in which it claims that it is the owner of the premises described in the complaint, and also the right to recover certain sums of money for ores alleged to have been wrongfully extracted therefrom. The bond referred to was appended to the complaint. The prayer was that the court should decree that defendants should convey to plaintiff a good and sufficient deed to the premises in controversy.
The answer denied all the material allegations of the complaint, and affirmatively alleged that the adverse claim interposed to the application of Mayger for a patent was for the purpose of harassing and hindering Mayger in obtaining a patent to his mining claim, and that the bond was given contrary to equity, good conscience, and public policy.
The case was tried by the district court without a jury, and the court made and filed findings of fact and conclusions of law. It was found that plaintiff's predecessors in interest were at the time mentioned in the complaint the owners of, in possession and entitled to the possession of, the Nine Hour lode mining claim as described, and that the strip of ground in dispute was at the time, and continued to be, a part of said claim; that the bond was executed and delivered by Mayger to the parties therein named, binding Mayger to convey to them or their assigns the ground in question when Mayger obtained a patent therefor; that it was given as a compromise and settlement of the controversy as to the land now in dispute, and then in litigation between the parties, and for the purpose of fixing and determining the boundary line between the Nine Hour lode mining claim and the St. Louis mining claim, as alleged in the complaint, and that Mayger thereafterwards did obtain a patent covering the premises in dispute; that plaintiffs in the adverse mining suit, on the execution to them of the bond by Mayger, dismissed their action, and performed all the conditions of the contract on their part; that at the time of the execution of the bond the predecessors of plaintiff were in actual possession of the ground in dispute, and that they and plaintiff have ever since remained in possession thereof, claiming and holding the same as a part of the Nine Hour lode mining claim; that at the date of the execution and delivery of the bond it was expressly agreed between the parties thereto that all of the ground lying to the east of the westerly line of the strip should be a portion of the Nine Hour lode mining claim; that plaintiff is the successor in interest of Robinson, Huggins, and Sterling, the obligees named in the bond, and also of De Camp and Eddy, who were co-tenants with said obligees in the premises at the date of the execution of the bond; that the mesne conveyances introduced in evidence on the part of plaintiff embraced, and were intended to include, the ground in question, and conveyed to the grantees therein named all of the interest, legal and equitable, which the grantor or grantors had in said premises, covering as well their interest in the ground in dispute as in every other part and parcel of the Nine Hour lode mining claim; that in July, 1893, plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Skelton Lead & Zinc Co.
...v. Gracey, 94 U.S. 762, 24 L. Ed. 313, supra; Belk v. Meagher, 104 U.S. 279, 26 L. Ed. 735, supra. In St. Louis Mining Co. v. Montana Mining Co., 171 U.S. 650, 43 L. Ed. 320, 19 S. Ct. 61, Mr. Chief Justice Fuller again held that a mining claim was the individual property of the owner of th......
-
Jersey Cent. Power & Light Co. v. Local Unions 327, 749, 1289, 1298, 1303, 1309 and 1314 of Intern. Broth. of Elec. Workers
...U.S. 24, 34-36, 68 S.Ct. 847, 92 L.Ed. 1187 (1948); Muschany, 324 U.S. at 66, 65 S.Ct. 442; St. Louis Mining & Milling Co. v. Montana Mining Co., 171 U.S. 650, 655, 19 S.Ct. 61, 43 L.Ed. 320 (1898). In the case sub judice we are not without legislative guidance in ascertaining the public po......
-
Our Lady of the Rockies, Inc. v. Peterson
...public lands when the location is made—but the United States retains title to the land. St. Louis Mining & Milling Co. v. Montana Mining Co., 171 U.S. 650, 655, 19 S.Ct. 61, 63, 43 L.Ed. 320 (1898); California Coastal Com'n, 480 U.S. at 575, 107 S.Ct. at 1422; Talbott, 6 Mont. at 108, 9 P. ......
-
In re Skelton Lead & Zinc Co.'s Gross Production Tax for 1919
... ... or of the mining or mineral rights, the machinery, equipment ... or appliances used in the ... its validity. See Wiggins Ferry Co. v. East St ... Louis, 107 U.S. 374, 2 S.Ct. 257, 27 L.Ed. 419; ... Western Union Tel. Co. v ... In ... St. Louis Mining Co. v. Montana Mining Co., 171 U.S ... 654, 19 S.Ct. 61, 43 L.Ed. 320, Mr. Chief ... 505, 14 S.Ct. 651, 38 L.Ed. 532; St ... Louis Mining & Milling Co. v. Montana Mine Co., 171 U.S ... 650, 19 S.Ct. 61, 43 L.Ed. 320 ... ...
-
Client Responsibility for Lawyer Conduct: Examining the Agency Nature of the Lawyer-client Relationship
...(quoting In re Artha Mgmt., Inc., 91 F.3d 326, 329 (2d Cir. 1996))). 155. See St. Louis Mining and Milling Co. v. Montana Mining Co., 171 U.S. 650, 656 (1898) ("[S]ettlements of matters in litigation, or in dispute, without recourse to litigation, are generally favored."). See also Keahole ......