Legal Opinion

Stenfjeld v. Espe

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided May 24, 1909No. 1,631PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above). Rev.St. § 2330 (30 U.S.C.A. § 36), provides that: “Two or more persons or associations of persons having contiguous claims of any size, although such claims may be less than ten acres each, may make joint entry thereof; but no location of a placer claim made after the ninth day of July eighteen hundred and seventy, shall exceed one hundred and sixty acres for any one person or association of persons.”

The language of this statute is plain. It authorizes an association location of contiguous claims only. The clear implication is that claims not contiguous may…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Del Monte Mining & Milling Co. v. Last Chance Mining & Milling Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
  2. St. Louis Mining & Milling Co. v. Montana Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
  3. Porter v. Tonopah North Star Tunnel & Development Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada · 1904

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Wiesenthal v. Abe GoffIdaho Supreme Court · 1941

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API