Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Hebert v. Bond

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided December 10, 1929No. File No. 5325Published

1ConcurrenceBurch, J.

I am satisfied the judgment should be affirmed. H'ebert, by the act of locating, working', and occupying the mine, acquired a right under the federal mining law. His location antedates the homestead filing, and there is no evidence Mrs. McDermott had acquired any rights under the homestead law prior to filing her homestead claim. After the location of the mine, that part of the federal domain was not subject to homestead entry, having' been already appropriated. It may be that Hebert did not comply with the law as to assessment work in many of the years that he held the mine. But it is well…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Becher v. Contoure Laboratories, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1929
  2. Rector v. GibbonSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
  3. Klopenstine v. HaysUtah Supreme Court · 1899
  4. Lakin v. Sierra Buttes Gold Min. Co.United States Circuit Court · 1885
  5. Emerson v. McWhirterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901

3 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