Fee v. Durham
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The High Peak placer mining claim was duly located January 1, 1898, •by the grantors of the defendant in error. On the 26th of December, 1899, the original locators of the claim commenced to do the assessment work for that year.
Read the full summary
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The High Peak placer mining claim was duly located January 1, 1898, •by the grantors of the defendant in error. On the 26th of December, 1899, the original locators of the claim commenced to do the assessment work for that year. Laborers, provided with suitable tools for the purpose, worked continuously during the usual working hours of each day from the 26th of December up to Saturday evening, December 30th, when they left off work, leaving their tools on the ground intending to resume work Monday…
1DissentSanborn, Circuit Judge
The portion of the act of Congress which conditions the decision of this case reads:
“On each claim located after the tenth day of May, eighteen hundred and seventy-two, and until a patent has been issued therefor, not less than one hundred dollars’ worth of labor shall be performed or improvements made during each year. * * * And upon a failure to comply with these conditions, the claim or mine upon which such failure occurred shall be open to relocation in the same manner as if no location of the same had ever been made, provided that the original locators, their heirs, assigns, or legal…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Bank of Columbia v. OkelySupreme Court of the United States · 1819
- United States v. HartwellSupreme Court of the United States · 1868
- Belk v. MeagherSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Lake County v. RollinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Atherton v. FowlerSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.