Stewart Mining Company v. Ontario Mining Company

Decision Date26 April 1915
Docket NumberNo. 205,205
Citation59 L.Ed. 989,237 U.S. 350,35 S.Ct. 610
PartiesSTEWART MINING COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. ONTARIO MINING COMPANY, Stanley A. Easton, and Myron A. Folsom
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs. Charles S. Thomas, Milton S. Gunn, Edgar T. Brackett, Nash Rockwood, and William E. Cullen, Jr., for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. John P. Gray, Myron A. Folsom, and James E. Gyde for defendants in error.

Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the court:

Contest between the mining companies (they were respectively plaintiff and defendants in the trial court and we shall so designate them) as to certain ore bodies lying beneath the surface of the mining claim of defendants, called the Ontario. Plaintiff asserts ownership to the ore bodies by reason of being owner in fee and in possession of a quartz lode mining claim named the Senator Stewart Fraction Lode Claim. It is alleged that within such claim there 'is a certain vein or lode bearing silver, lead, and other valuable minerals, of which said vein or lode and the ore and mineral therein contained this plaintiff is the owner in possession and entitled to the possession. That the top or apex of said vein or lode crosses the easterly end line of said claim at approximately the center thereof between corners Nos. 1 and 2, and extends within the boundaries of said claim in a westerly direction, following the general course of said claim, for a distance of seven hundred five (705) feet, more or less. That said vein or lode has a downward course and descends into the earth southerly and beyond the south boundary and side line of said claim into and beneath the surface of the Ontario quartz lode mining claim, designated as survey No. 755.'

Plaintiff prayed for an accounting and for an injunction against the further mining or extracting of the ore.

Defendants' answer set up opposing contentions and denied the rights alleged by plaintiff. In a cross complaint defendants asserted title and prayed that it be quieted against the claim of plaintiffs. The judgment of the trial court responded to this prayer. The judgment was affirmed by the supreme court of the state (23 Idaho, 724, 132 Pac. 787). This writ of error was then granted.

The case is not embarrassed by any dispute of facts of the title to the respective claims, or of their boundaries, or of the mining of the ore by defendants. The controversy turns entirely upon the construction of § 2322, Revised Statutes of the United States (Comp. Stat. 1913, § 4618). It provides that locators of mining locations 'shall have 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. But their right of possession to such outside parts of such veins or ledges shall be confined to such portions thereof as lie between vertical planes drawn downward as above described, through the end lines of their locations, so continued in their own direction that such planes will intersect such exterior parts of such veins or ledges. And nothing in this section shall authorize the locator or possessor of a vein or lode which extends in its downward course beyond the vertical lines of his claim to enter upon the surface of a claim owned or possessed by another.'

It will be observed, therefore, to summarize the rights conferred by the section, that the locator of a mining claim has the right to the surface included within the lines of his claim, and if a vein has its top or apex within the claim, he may follow such vein downward, though it may depart from a perpendicular in its downward course outside 'of the vertical side lines' of the location,—that is, into adjoining grounds. The length of the side lines and the claim they bound are limited by the end lines, or, as it is expressed in the statute, by vertical planes drawn downward through the end lines. Iron Silver Min. Co. v. Cheesman, 116 U. S. 529, 29 L. ed. 712, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 481; Iron Silver Min. Co. v. Elgin Min. & Smelting Co. 118 U. S. 196, 30 L. ed. 98, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1177, 15 Mor. Min. Rep. 641.

The statute would seem to call for no effort of construction, and the distinction which obtains in the parlance of miners and in the cases, between the strike or course and the dip of a vein, is compelled by the statute, and marks accurately the linear and extralateral rights of a location. This certainly, as far as any language can do it, expresses the distinction which must be observed, however various may be the natural conditions. In other words, the strike and the dip of the vein must not be confounded nor the rights dependent upon them confused.

What, then, do they determine in the present case? The plaintiff asserts, as we have seen, that the vein has its top or apex within one of its claims (the Senator Stewart Fraction Lode), and asserts further that the vein extends downward beyond the side lines, within the limits of the end lines extended vertically, to and beneath the claim of defendants, and includes the ore bodies mined by the latter.

These are the facts as found by the trial court:

'That no part of the apex of the said ore bodies lies within the lines of the Senator Stewart Fraction lode mining claim.

'That the plaintiff is the owner, in the possession and entitled to the possession of the Senator Stewart Fraction lode mining claim described in the complaint, with the exception of that part thereof in conflict with the Quaker lode mining claim, which conflict is not material to any issue involved in this case.

'That within said Senator Stewart Fraction lode mining claim there is a vein or a lode of mineral-bearing rock in place which, on its onward course, crosses the south side line of said Senator Stewart Fraction lode mining claim, and has a course about north 30° east, and the said vein on its onward course does not reach any other line of said claim. That the said vein is cut off on its onward course by a large fault near the north line of said claim, called the Osburn fault in this case. That the said vein on its downward course passes underneath the east line of said claim, which is described in the patent as the end line of said claim, which line connects corners 1 and 2 of said claim. That the fault which cuts off said vein on its northerly end has a northwestwardly and southeastwardly course and dips southwestwardly. That the end of the vein against said fault has a course north 41° west. That the end of said vein against said fault has a steeply inclined downward course southeasterly.

'That the end of the vein as the same is terminated on the onward course of the said vein against the fault hereinbefore referred to is the end of the vein on the line of its dip, and the said vein is undercut by the said fault in such manner that if the country below the fault was eroded, it would present the appearance of an overhanging cliff.

'That the said fault which terminates the said vein upon its onward course is a fault of great magnitude, and for a short distance above the fault has disturbed and broken and slightly deformed the vein and inclosing rocks in close proximately [proximity] to said fault in some places for a greater distance from the fault than in others. That the vein is also at various places cut by other faults which tend in places to flatten the vein somewhat upon its downward course.

'That the said vein is continuous on its onward course from the line of contact with the said great fault, in this case called the Osburn fault, southerly to the ore bodies within the Ontario lode mining claim, and has been followed upon the level in the drifts by the miners from the said edge of the vein to the ore bodies in the Ontario mining claim.

'That the top or apex of said vein which, on its onward course, crosses the south side line of said claim, is practically level.'

The supreme court affirmed the findings and added that the end of the vein against the Osborne fault was 'turned, curled, or cupped upward, caused by the disturbance which created the fault and cut off the vein.' And also said: 'It further appears that this vein is undercut by the Osborne fault in such a manner that if the fault were eroded or washed away, it would leave the vein standing out as an overhanging cliff.' The following diagram exhibits the relations of the claims, the location of the vein, and the Osborne fault:

[NOTE: MATERIAL SET AT THIS POINT IS NOT DISPLAYABLE (GRAPHIC OR TABULAR MATERIAL)]

The contention of plaintiff is that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Alameda Mining Co. v. Success Mining Co.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 22 Noviembre 1916
    ... 161 P. 862 29 Idaho 618 ALAMEDA MINING COMPANY, a Corporation, Respondent, v. SUCCESS MINING COMPANY, a Corporation, ... downward in the direction of the dip. ( Stewart Min. Co ... v. Ontario Min. Co., 237 U.S. 350, 35 S.Ct. 610, 59 ... ...
  • United States v. Ickes, 7023.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • 27 Mayo 1938
    ...as to whether a discovery exists in a particular case is a mixed question of fact and law (See Stewart Mining Co. v. Ontario Mining Co., 237 U.S. 350, 356 35 S.Ct. 610, 59 L.Ed. 989, where a similar question as to the existence of the apex of a vein arose), nevertheless, we appreciate that ......
  • Bowden v. Davis
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • 9 Noviembre 1955
    ... ... In North American Cold Storage Company v. City of Chicago, 211 U.S. 306, 29 S.Ct. 101, ... ...
  • Merritt for Merritt v. State
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 5 Febrero 1985
    ...Id. 98 Idaho at 713, 571 P.2d at 774. In Stewart Min. Co. v. Ontario Min. Co., 23 Idaho 724, 132 P. 787 (1913), aff'd, 237 U.S. 350, 35 S.Ct. 610, 59 L.Ed. 989 (1915), the appellant assigned as error a portion of the trial judge's oral holding announced at the end of the trial. In disposing......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • CHAPTER 11 EXTRALATERAL RIGHTS IN THE 21ST CENTURY: CONSIDERATIONS FOR TITLE EXAMINATION
    • United States
    • FNREL - Special Institute Advanced Mineral Title Examination (FNREL)
    • Invalid date
    ...One view - less than 45° terminates extralateral rights. Stewart Mining C. v. Ontario Mining Co., 132 P. 787 (Idaho 1913) (dictum), aff'd, 237 U.S. 350 (1915). — Opposing view - no set amount as long as there is some departure from horizontal. Alameda Mining C v. Success Mining Co., 161 P. ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT