Legal Opinion
Bunker Hill & Sullivan Mining & Concentrating Co. v. Empire State-Idaho Mining & Developing Co.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Idaho
Decided January 17, 1903PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BEATTY, District Judge.
Complainant, as owner of the Stemwinder Mining Claim, in bringing this action to quiet its title to an underground portion of the ledge thereof, admitting the priority of the Emma and Last Chance mining claims, makes no claim to any part of their surface area, nor to any portion of the ledge lying between the extend*269ed planes passing through their legal end lines; but it claims that underground portion of the ledge lying between the prolonged planes of the Stemwinder end lines and westerly of the prolonged plane passing through the north end line of the Last Chance,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Del Monte Mining & Milling Co. v. Last Chance Mining & Milling Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Empire State-Idaho Mining & Developing Co. v. Bunker Hill & Sullivan Mining & Concentrating Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1902
- Kemp v. National Bank of the Republic of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1901
- Bunker Hill & Sullivan Mining & Concentrating Co. v. Empire State-Idaho Mining & Developing Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1901
- Bunker Hill & S. Mining & Concentrating Co. v. Empire State Idaho Mining & Developing Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Idaho · 1900
3Cited by4 opinions
- Stewart Mining Co. v. Ontario Mining Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1913
- Grand Central Min. Co. v. Mammoth Min. Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1905
- Esselstyn v. United States Gold Corp.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1915
- Utah Consol. Mining Co. v. Utah Apex Mining Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1922