Sturtevant v. Vogel
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). The plaintiff in error contends that, both by the laws of Alaska and the custom of the miners, the recording of the location notice within 90 days after location is essential to the life of the location, and that a failure to so record the same results in the forfeiture thereof. But one witness was called to prove the alleged custom of the miners, and his testimony falls short of showing the existence of any custom or regulation adopted by the miners, in the district where the claim is located, making the recording of the notice of location essential to the…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Butte City Water Co. v. BakerSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Haws v. Victoria Copper Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Jupiter Mining Co. v. Bodie Consolidated Mining Co.District Court, D. California · 1881
- Rush v. FrenchArizona Supreme Court · 1874
- Last Chance Min. Co. v. Bunker Hill & S. Mining & Concentrating Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1904
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Butte & Superior Copper Co. v. Clark-Montana Realty Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1918
- Johnson v. RyanNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1939
- Dripps v. the Allison's Mines Co.California Court of Appeal · 1919
- Skaw v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1987
- Pilip v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Alaska · 1960
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.