Goldfield Consolidated Milling & Transportation Co. v. Old Sandstorm Annex Gold Mining Co.
Nevada Supreme Court
Appeal from the Seventh Judicial District Court, Esmeralda County; Peter J. Somers, Judge- Condemnation proceeding by the Goldfield Consolidated Milling and Transportation Company against the Old Sandstorm Annex Gold Mining Company and others. From an interlocutory order, the defendants appeal. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation first having been made. (Sec. 8, art. 1, Const.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Seventh Judicial District Court, Esmeralda County; Peter J. Somers, Judge- Condemnation proceeding by the Goldfield Consolidated Milling and Transportation Company against the Old Sandstorm Annex Gold Mining Company and others. From an interlocutory order, the defendants appeal. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation first having been made. (Sec. 8, art. 1, Const. Nev.; art. 5, U. S. Const.) The evidence shows very clearly that plaintiff never had any right or authority to take or use any part of the land of defendants. The legislative…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Coleman, J.:
Respondent instituted proceedings in the district court of Esmeralda County to condemn portions of certain patented mining claims belonging to appellants. From an order of the court made upon the hearing of certain preliminary questions, an appeal has been taken.
The respondent alleges in its complaint that it is organized for the purpose of milling, and reducing by other methods, gold, silver and other ores, and that it now is, and for a long time past has been, engaged in the carrying .on of the said business of milling and reducing ores; that the said respondent is…
2Cases cited53 opinions
- Clark v. NashSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Strickley v. Highland Boy Gold Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1906
- Searl v. School Dist. No. 2 in Lake Cty.Supreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Spring Valley Water Works v. DrinkhouseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- B. & O. Railroad v. P. W. & Ky. RailroadWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1881
48 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Conway v. FabianMontana Supreme Court · 1939
- Urban Renewal Agency of City of Reno v. IacomettiNevada Supreme Court · 1963
- Vermont Hydro-Electric Corp. v. DunnSupreme Court of Vermont · 1921
- Wrightsman v. Southwestern Natural Gas Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1935
- East Bay Municipal Utility District v. City of LodiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.