Twin Lakes H. G. Min. Synd. (Lim.) v. Colo. Midland R'y Co.
Supreme Court of Colorado
Error to District Court of Chaffee County. ( This was a proceeding in condemnation, instituted by defendant in error, the Colorado Midland Railway Company, to acquire the right of way for a railroad across placer mining property of plaintiff in error, the Twin Lakes Hydraulic Gold Mining Syndicate (Limited). It having been deemed important that the railroad company should have immediate possession of the right of way for the purposes of construction without waiting the…
Read the full summary
Error to District Court of Chaffee County. ( This was a proceeding in condemnation, instituted by defendant in error, the Colorado Midland Railway Company, to acquire the right of way for a railroad across placer mining property of plaintiff in error, the Twin Lakes Hydraulic Gold Mining Syndicate (Limited). It having been deemed important that the railroad company should have immediate possession of the right of way for the purposes of construction without waiting the conclusion of legal proceedings determining the amount of damage, the parties entered into a contract in which, with various…
1Opinion of the Court
Beed, C.
Counsel contend that the fourth instruction was erroneous in charging “ that the fact that the land is *4designated as placers, and that the title thereto was acquired under the mining laws of the United States, constitute no evidence either that the ground in question contains valuable deposits of gold or other mineral, or that the same is valuable for placer purposes.” This clause of the instruction, above cited, should not be examined alone, but in connection with the balance of the instruction,' — to do otherwise would be in violation of a well-settled rule. The supposed…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Pinkham v. Inhabitants of ChelmsfordMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1872
- Sherwood v. St. Paul & Chicago Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1875
- Fleming v. Chicago, D. & M. R. R.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1872
- Fairbanks v. Inhabitants of FitchburgMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1872
- Worcester v. Great Falls Manuf'g Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1856
3Cited by14 opinions
- Lamborn v. BellSupreme Court of Colorado · 1893
- Lavelle v. Town of JulesburgSupreme Court of Colorado · 1910
- Pine Martin Mining Co. v. Empire Zinc Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1932
- Alta Investment Co. v. WordenSupreme Court of Colorado · 1898
- City of Englewood v. Denver Waste Transfer, L.L.C.Colorado Court of Appeals · 2002
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.