United States Mining Co. v. Lawson

• Decision Date: 23 November 1904
• Parties: UNITED STATES MIN. CO. v. LAWSON et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

134 F. 769

UNITED STATES MIN. CO. v. LAWSON et al.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

November 23, 1904

This is a suit to quiet the title to four mining claims in the West Mountain Mining District, Utah, and to bodies of ore beneath their surfaces. The allegations of the bill are briefly these: Complainant owns the Jordan Extension, Grizzly Northern Light, and Fairview claims, and also the bodies of ore vertically beneath their surfaces, and is in possession of these claims and engaged in working them, with two other claims hereinafter mentioned, as one property for mining purposes. Defendants claim to own the underlying ore bodies as parts of veins or lodes which have their apices within the surface boundaries of adjacent claims belonging to and in the possession of defendants. Under their claim of ownership, defendants, through underground workings have wrongfully entered the underlying ore bodies in complainant's Jordan Extension, Grizzly, and Northern Light claims, have extracted therefrom large quantities of valuable ore, and are threatening to continue to extract ore therefrom and to extend their underground workings and mining operations to the remaining underlying ore bodies, including those beneath the surface of the Fairview claim. If any ore body beneath the surface of the Jordan Extension, Grizzly Northern Light, or Fairview is part of a vein or lode dipping or extending into such claim from a claim of the defendants, it is part of a vein or lode which has its apex in the Old Jordan and Mountain Gem mining claims, which are owned by and in the possession of the complainant, and such ore body is within the extralateral rights incident to the last-named claims. Defendants' claim of ownership of such underlying ore bodies is false and unfounded in face, and constitutes a cloud upon complainant's title. The prayer of the bill is that the title of complainant to the four claims and to the underlying ore bodies be quieted, and that defendants be perpetually enjoined from asserting any claim thereto and from extracting any ore therefrom. A demurrer to the bill on the ground that it discloses that complainant has an adequate remedy at law was overruled.

The answer of defendants specifically denies the allegations of the bill, excepting those relating to diverse citizenship, and contains affirmative allegations substantially as follows: Defendants are the owners and in the possession of the Kempton and Ashland mining claims, which are adjacent to the Jordan Extension, Grizzly, Northern Light, and Fairview claims of complainant. The only ore bodies in complainant's said claims are parts of veins or lodes which have their apices within the Ashland and Kempton claims of defendants, and which, on their dip beneath the surface, extend toward and through complainant's claims. Defendants entered these ore bodies and extracted and removed ore therefrom, as they were and are lawfully entitled to do, in pursuance of their right under the mining laws of the United States to follow extralaterally such veins or lodes on their dip.

As presented in the large volume of testimony which was taken, the controversy may be summarized in this manner: The Old Jordan, Mountain Gem, Kempton, Ashland, Jordan Extension, Northern Light, Grizzly, and Fairview are contiguous mining claims in the West Mountain Mining District, Utah, the Kempton and Ashland partially separating the surfaces of the Jordan Extension, Grizzly, Northern Light, and Fairview from the surfaces of the Old Jordan and Mountain Gem. The apex of a stratum of limestone, the strike of which is in a southwesterly and northeasterly direction, is longitudinally bisected or divided by the Old Jordan, Mountain Gem, and Kempton. The southerly side lines of the Kempton, as patented, are in part coincident with the northerly side lines of the Old Jordan and Mountain Gem, as patented, and the greater part of the width of the apex of the limestone is south of the lines so dividing the patented ground and is within the surface boundaries of the Old Jordan and Mountain Gem. The limestone is from 100 to 200 feet in width, is confined between well defined walls of quartzite, dips northwesterly at an angle of about 30 degrees, passes beyond the northerly side lines of the Old Jordan and Mountain Gem, and extends, on its dip beneath the surface, through the Kempton, Ashland, Jordan Extension, Grizzly, Northern Light, and Fairview. The ore bodies in dispute are within the stratum of limestone, and vertically beneath the surfaces of the four claims last named. The complainant owns the Old Jordan, Mountain Gem, Jordan Extension, Grizzly, Northern Light, and Fairview, and the defendants own the Kempton and Ashland. The parties are in possession of the surfaces of their respective claims, and are engaged in working them extensively for mining purposes. The evidence was chiefly directed to the question whether or not the stratum of limestone constitutes a single broad vein or lode of mineral bearing rock. Complainant insisted, and its evidence tended to show, that the stratum is such a single vein or lode, while the defendants insisted, and their evidence tended to show, that the stratum embraces several distinct and independent veins or lodes; that one such vein or lode, called a 'bedded vein,' has its apex within the surface lines of the Kempton, extends on its strike in the direction of the Kempton end lines, passes on its dip beneath the surface beyond the northerly side line of that claim, and through the Jordan Extension, Ashland, Northern Light, Grizzly, and Fairview; that another distinct and independent vein or lode, called the 'Ashland cross fissure,' and of which the bedded vein is claimed to be a lateral continuation or appendage, has its apex in the Ashland, passes on its dip beneath the surface beyond the northwesterly side line of that claim, and through the Northern Light, Grizzly, and Fairview, and that the ore bodies in controversy are parts of the two veins or lodes, the apices of which are within the Kempton and Ashland. In the assertion of the extralateral rights intended to be set forth and sustained by their answer and evidence, the defendants have extended their underground workings and mining operations into the ore bodies in dispute and have removed some of them, but others are as yet in place and undisturbed including those underlying the surface of the Fairview.

The court dismissed the bill, but filed no findings of fact or opinion disclosing under what view of the facts or of the law the decree of dismissal was rendered.

William H. Dickson and George Sutherland (A. C. Ellis, A. C. Ellis, Jr., Waldemar Van Cott, and E. M. Allison, on the brief), for appellant.

Ogden Hiles and Charles J. Hughes, Jr. (L. R. Rogers, on the brief), for appellees.

Before SANBORN, VAN DEVANTER, and HOOK, Circuit Judges.

VAN DEVANTER, Circuit Judge, after stating the case as above, .

The elements of federal jurisdiction being present, a right of action created or enlarged by the laws of a state and made enforceable in its courts of general jurisdiction is equally enforceable in the federal courts sitting in that state; but notwithstanding the procedure prescribed by the laws of the state, the enforcement in the federal courts can be by suit in equity only where there is not a plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law, according to the distinction between actions at law and suits in equity prevailing in those courts. Rev. St. Sec. 723 (U.S.Comp.St. 1901, p. 583); Clark v. Smith, 13 Pet. 195, 10 L.Ed. 123; Holland v. Challen, 110 U.S. 15, 3 Sup.Ct. 495, 28 L.Ed. 52; Reynolds v. Crawfordsville Bank, 112 U.S. 405, 5 Sup.Ct. 213, 28 L.Ed. 733; Whitehead v. Shattuck, 138 U.S. 146, 11 Sup.Ct. 712, 35 L.Ed. 358; Wehrman v. Conklin, 155 U.S. 314, 15 Sup.Ct. 129, 39 L.Ed. 167; Prentice v. Duluth, etc., Co., 7 C.C.A. 293, 297, 58 F. 437; Darragh v. Wetter, etc., Co., 23 C.C.A. 609, 78 F. 7; Gillis v. Downey 19 C.C.A. 286, 291, 85 F. 438; Sawyer v. White, 58 C.C.A. 587, 122 F. 223.

The laws of Utah give a right of action in the courts of that state to quiet the title to real property without any previous adjudication of the title in an action at law, and without reference to the possession. Rev. St. 1898, Secs. 2915, 3511. This enlarged right is enforceable by a suit in equity in the federal courts when the complainant is in possession and the defendant is out of possession, because in either case there is no adequate and complete remedy at law. Holland v. Challen, and Wehrman v. Conklin, supra.

It is objected that the present bill shows that the ore bodies in dispute are in the possession of the defendants, and not of the complainant, and therefore that the latter has an adequate and complete remedy at law. The objection is untenable. Where the true owner of a mining claim is in possession of its surface, claiming title to the entire claim, his possession in legal contemplation extends to everything which is part of the claim, whether vertically beneath its surface or within the extralateral right granted by Congress, which is not in the actual possession of another holding adversely. Clarke v. Courtney, 5 Pet. 319 354, 8 L.Ed. 113; Montana, etc., Co., v. St. Louis, etc., Co., 42 C.C.A. 415, 42, 102 F. 430; Empire State, etc., Co. v. Bunker Hill, etc., Co., 58 C.C.A. 311, 315, 121 F. 973; Last Chance Mining Co. v. Bunker Hill, etc. Co. (C.C.A.) 131 F. 579, 583. The bill states that the complainant is the owner of the claims of which the ore bodies in dispute are part, and is in possession of these claims and engaged in working them as one property for mining purposes. This is a sufficient allegation of complainant's possession of the ore bodies as well as of the surfaces of...