Webb v. American Asphaltum Min. Co.
| Decision Date | 16 November 1907 |
| Docket Number | 2,651. |
| Citation | 157 F. 203 |
| Parties | WEBB v. AMERICAN ASPHALTUM MINING CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Syllabus by the Court
Asphaltum in lodes or veins in rock in place may be entered and patented by means of lode mining claims under section 2320 Rev. St. (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1424), and it may not be secured by means of placer claims under section 2329, nor under Act Feb. 11, 1897, c. 216, 29 Stat. 526 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1434), regarding the entry of lands containing petroleum or other mineral oils.
The distinguishing test which determines whether or not a valuable mineral deposit may be secured by a lode claim or by a placer claim is the form and character of the deposit. If it is in a vein or lode in rock in place, it may be secured by a lode claim, and it may not be by a placer claim. If it is not in a vein or lode in rock in place, it may be secured by a placer claim, and may not be by a lode claim.
The words 'other valuable deposits' in the clause 'mining claims upon veins or lodes of quartz, or other rock in place bearing gold, silver, cinnabar, lead, tin copper, or other valuable deposits' in section 2320, Rev St. (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1424), includes nonmetalliferous, as well as metalliferous, deposits.
J. M. Woy (A. L. Abrahams, on the brief), for plaintiff in error.
J. E. Robinson (Edward D. Upham, on the brief), for defendant in error.
Before SANBORN and VAN DEVANTER, Circuit Judges, and PHILIPS, District judge.
This action involves the title and the right of possession of a lode or vein of asphaltum of the kind commonly called 'gilsonite,' upon which the grantors of the plaintiff, Webb, located a placer claim, and the grantor of the defendant, the American Asphaltum Mining Company, subsequently located two lode mining claims. The defendant applied for a patent, the plaintiff filed an adverse claim, and brought this action to determine the title. The case was tried by the court upon an agreed statement of facts and some extraneous testimony, and the court found for the defendant. The latter's objection to the consideration of the question whether or not this finding is sustained by the evidence would be well founded, were it not for the fact that the agreed statement discloses all the material facts, and the evidence which was taken was immaterial. Hence the issue of law arises in this court whether or not the agreed facts sustained the judgment, and that issue is dependent upon the true answer to the single question: May the right to the possession and to the title to a vein or lode of asphaltum in rock in place be secured by the location of a placer claim upon the land in which it is found?
A vein or lode is mineral-bearing rock or other earthy matter in place in a fissure in rock, so that its boundaries are sharply defined by rocky walls in place. A lode location is the location of such a lode or vein in the manner prescribed by the acts of Congress. A placer location is the location in accordance with those acts of a tract of land for the mineral bearing or other valuable deposits upon or within it that are not found in lodes or veins in rock in place. It is a claim of a tract of land for the sake of loose deposits on or near its surface. Clipper Mining Company v. Eli Mining & Land Company, 194 U.S. 220, 228, 24 Sup.Ct. 632, 48 L.Ed. 944. The plaintiff in this case has made no claim of right or title under section 2333 of the Revised Statutes (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1433), and the statements and discussion herein have no relevancy to such a claim or to the proper construction of that section. By section 2319 of the Revised Statutes all valuable mineral deposits in lands belonging to the United States are declared to be free and open to exploration and purchase. By the second section of the act of July 26, 1866 (14 Stat.c. 262), the location and acquisition by means of a lode mining claim of any 'vein or lode of quartz, or other rock in place bearing gold, silver, cinnabar, or copper' were authorized. By Act July 9, 1870, c. 235, 16 Stat. 217, Rev. St. Sec. 2329, the act of 1866 was amended by adding section 12, which provided 'that claims, usually called 'placers' including all forms of deposit, excepting veins of quartz or other rock in place' might be entered and patented. By the act of May 10, 1872, section 2 of the act of 1866 was repealed and authority was granted to qualified citizens to locate and acquire by means of lode mining claims 'veins or lodes of quartz or other rock in place bearing gold, silver, cinnabar, lead, tin, copper or other valuable deposits. ' Act May 10, 1872, c. 152, Secs. 2, 9, 17 Stat. 91, 94, Rev. St. Sec. 2320.
The asphaltum here in controversy is a solid valuable mineral deposit commonly called 'gilsonite,' which is found in a vein or lode in rock in place. But counsel for the plaintiff insist that it is not subject to location as a lode because it is not a metalliferous deposit. They say that while it falls within the literal meaning of the words 'other valuable deposits' in section 2320, those words should be interpreted by the rules noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis, and that, as all the deposits specified in that section bear metal, the intention of Congress must be presumed to have been to restrict the meaning of that term to deposits of the same kind. The rules that, where general words follow specific words, the former are presumed to treat of things of the same character as the latter, and that words and terms should receive the interpretation which the same or similar terms must have in the same or like relations, are persuasive, and the argument founded upon them might have proved convincing if other considerations could have been ignored. But the term 'other valuable deposits' occurs in a general statute enacted to provide a comprehensive and complete system for the disposition of the mineral deposits in the lands of the United States. Separate sections or clauses of this general legislation may not be lawfully segregated from the body of the statutes upon this subject and interpreted without reference to the purpose and general effect of the other laws relating thereto, but all the parts of this legislation must be considered and construed together, to the end that, if possible, it may become and be a uniform and practical system of regulation and of action.
Section 2318 provides that all 'lands valuable for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bowen v. Chemi-Cote Perlite Corp.
...295, 40 S.Ct. 321, 64 L.Ed. 567 (1920); San Francisco Chemical Co. v. Duffield, 201 F. 830 (8th Cir. 1912); Webb v. American Asphaltum Mining Co., 157 F. 203 (8th Cir. 1907). The Land Department states that the decisions cited do not directly decide the question presented, but that by impli......
-
Bowen v. Sil-Flo Corp.
...which are persuasive to this court are: San Francisco Chemical Co. v. Duffield, 201 F. 830 (8th Cir. 1912); Webb v. American Asphaltum Mining Co., 157 F. 203 (8th Cir. 1907); Duffield v. San Francisco Chemical Co., 205 F. 480 (9th Cir. 1913), reversing District Court decision at 198 F. 942 ......
-
Fuller v. Mountain Sculpture
...the general mass of the mountain. United States v. Iron Silver Mining Co., 128 U.S. 673, 9 S.Ct. 195, 32 L.Ed. 571; Webb v. American Asphaltum Mining Co., 8 Cir., 157 F. 203; Cole v. Ralph, 252 U.S. 286, 40 S.Ct. 321, 64 L.Ed. 567; Grand Central Mining Co. v. Mammoth Mining Co., 29 Utah 490......
-
United States v. Toole
...v. Bradford, 1901, 31 L.D. 108; Phifer v. Heaton, 1898, 27 L.D. 57. 5 See Northern P. R. Co. v. Soderberg, supra; Webb v. American Asphaltum Mining Co., 8 Cir. 1907, 157 F. 203; United States v. Dawson, 1944, 58 L.D. 670, 679; Pacific Coast Marble Co. v. Northern Pac. R. R. Co., supra, 25 L......