Legal Opinion

Elder v. Horseshoe Mining & Milling Co.

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided May 2, 1904No. 220PublishedCited by 13 opinions

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA. The plaintiffs in error, being, the administrator, together with the heirs at law of Rufus Wilsey, deceased, commenced this suit in the state court of South Dakota against the defendants, and upon the trial the complaint was dismissed, upon the merits; that judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State, and the plaintiffs have brought the case here.

Read the full summary

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA. The plaintiffs in error, being, the administrator, together with the heirs at law of Rufus Wilsey, deceased, commenced this suit in the state court of South Dakota against the defendants, and upon the trial the complaint was dismissed, upon the merits; that judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State, and the plaintiffs have brought the case here. The action was commenced to obtain a decree that defendants held in trust for the plaintiffs in error án undivided one-half interest in and to the land embraced in what is called…

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Peckham

The Federal questions which arise in this case are based upon the statute of the United States already referred to in the foregoing statement of facts, being section 2324 of the Revised Statute's, the material portion of which is set forth in the margin. 1

The plaintiffs in error contend that-the notices published by: or in behalf of the defendants in error were not a compliance with the statute, because, of the manner in which they were addressed. They also insist that, even assuming the sufficiency of the notices, they were not published in accordance with the requirements of the statute for…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Black v. Elkhorn Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1896

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Bradford v. MorrisonSupreme Court of the United States · 1909
  2. Hettinger v. Good Road District No. 1Idaho Supreme Court · 1911
  3. O'Hanlon v. Ruby Gulch Mining Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1913
  4. Badger Gold Min. & Mill. Co. v. Stockton Gold & Copper Min. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon · 1905
  5. Van Sice v. Ibex Mining Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1909

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API