Arizona Commercial Mining Co. v. Iron Cap Copper Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Two bills in equity, filed in the Supreme Judicial Court, as amended, on February 20, 1919, each by the Arizona Commercial Mining Company against the Iron Cap Copper Company, both being corporations organized under the laws of the State of Maine, having a place of business in Boston and conducting mining operations in the State of Arizona. The allegations of the bills are described in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Two bills in equity, filed in the Supreme Judicial Court, as amended, on February 20, 1919, each by the Arizona Commercial Mining Company against the Iron Cap Copper Company, both being corporations organized under the laws of the State of Maine, having a place of business in Boston and conducting mining operations in the State of Arizona. The allegations of the bills are described in the opinion. In each case the defendant filed a plea to the jurisdiction of the subject matter of the suit and also in each case demurred to the bill for want of jurisdiction. In the first suit, called the “ore…
1Opinion of the CourtCrosby, J.
These cases are reported to this court by a single justice, upon the bills as amended and the defendant’s demurrers and pleas to the jurisdiction. The plaintiff and the defendant are corporations organized under the laws of the State of Maine; *524each conducts mining operations in the State of Arizona and has a place of business in Boston.
The first or “ore” suit, so called, is brought to recover a debt for money had and received by the defendant to the use of the plaintiff for ores, which the plaintiff alleges were its property and were converted and sold by the defendant, and which came from…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Howarth v. LombardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1900
- Ginn v. AlmyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1912
- Post & Co. v. Toledo, Cincinnati, & St. Louis RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1887
- Nashua River Paper Co. v. Hammermill Paper Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1916
- Kimball v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1892
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Universal Adjustment Corp. v. Midland Bank, Ltd., of LondonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1933
- New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. EstesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1967
- Hooker v. PorterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1930
- Arizona Commercial Mining Co. v. Iron Cap Copper Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1920
- Strickland v. Humble Oil & Refining Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1943
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.