Legal Opinion

Hayden v. Brown

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided June 20, 1898PublishedCited by 6 opinions

From Jackson : Hiero K. Hanna, Judge. This is a suit to enjoin an alleged trespass. The plaintiffs allege : That they are the owners of and in possession, and entitled to the possession of a mining claim in Jackson county, described as follows: “Commencing at the discovery shaft on the said claim, known as the ‘Mountain Lily Ledge,’ situated in sections two and thirty-five, township thirty-six south, of range three west of the Willamette meridian, on Paddy Hill, in the…

Read the full summary

From Jackson : Hiero K. Hanna, Judge. This is a suit to enjoin an alleged trespass. The plaintiffs allege : That they are the owners of and in possession, and entitled to the possession of a mining claim in Jackson county, described as follows: “Commencing at the discovery shaft on the said claim, known as the ‘Mountain Lily Ledge,’ situated in sections two and thirty-five, township thirty-six south, of range three west of the Willamette meridian, on Paddy Hill, in the Centennial mining district, running thence one point east of south five hundred feet, thence from said shaft one point west…

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Moore

1. Counsel for plaintiffs contend that the decree complained of is based upon the false assumption that the description of the mining claim is too indefinite and uncertain for identification, and that, if it does describe any *223claim, the boundaries thereof would not include the land upon which the defendants are working; while counsel for the defendants insist that the description locates the claim in two sections four miles apart, thus showing that it is more than 1,500 feet in length, and therefore not a legal claim. The evidence tends to show that the Mountain Lily Ledge was located prior…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. House v. JacksonOregon Supreme Court · 1893
  2. Gleeson v. Martin White Mining Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1878
  3. Anderson v. BaughmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1859
  4. Willamette Falls Canal & Lock Co. v. GordonOregon Supreme Court · 1876
  5. Seaman v. HogeboomNew York Supreme Court · 1855

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Oregon Growers' Co-operative Ass'n v. LentzOregon Supreme Court · 1923
  2. Bogard v. BarhanOregon Supreme Court · 1908
  3. Smith v. McDuffeeOregon Supreme Court · 1914
  4. Klovdahl v. SpringfieldOregon Supreme Court · 1916
  5. Tab Enterprises of Bend, Inc. v. HeareCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1978

1 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