Van Buren v. McKinlet
Idaho Supreme Court
APPEAL from District Court, Boise County. ' We claim the court below erred in refusing to admit in evidence the notice of location of the Pair Pay mining claim, auid in sustaining defendant's objection to said notice. The paramount title to all mining ground is in the United States.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from District Court, Boise County. ' We claim the court below erred in refusing to admit in evidence the notice of location of the Pair Pay mining claim, auid in sustaining defendant's objection to said notice. The paramount title to all mining ground is in the United States. The act of Congress relating to mining claims does not require an affidavit to the declaratory statement, or notice of location, and California, Idaho and Montana are the only states; that do require it. It is a condition added to those imposed by the United States, by the legislatures of the three states…
1Opinion of the CourtSullivan, J.
— This is an action on an adverse claim upon nu application of respondent for a patent from the United States to the Bed Warrior lode mining claim, situated in West View mining district, Boise county, Idaho. The complaint is in the usual form, and alleges, among other things, that the ■appellant is the owner of the identical mining ground included in the boundaries of said Bed Warrior mining claim under the name of the Fair Pay lode mining claim. The cause came on for trial before the court with a jury, and on the trial the notice •of location of said Fair Pay claim was offered in evidence by…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- McCowan v. MaclayMontana Supreme Court · 1895
- Dunlap v. PattisonIdaho Supreme Court · 1895
- McBurney v. BerryMontana Supreme Court · 1885
- Berg v. KoegelMontana Supreme Court · 1895
3Cited by2 opinions
- Humphreys v. Idaho Gold Mines Development Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1912
- Cloninger v. FinlaisonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1916