Smith v. Cascaden
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
DE HAVEN, District Judge.
Thi.s is an action brought for the purpose of obtaining a decree that the plaintiffs are the owners and entitled to the possession of a certain mining claim situated on Cleary creek, in the Fairbanks mining district, Alaska, located on January 3, 1904, and described in the complaint as No. “13, below, on the second tier of benches on the right *660limit of Cleary creek.” It appears from the evidence that plaintiffs’ claim, as located on the ground, overlaps a portion of a mining claim which the defendant Cascaden located on December 2, 1902. The controversy involves the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hammer v. Garfield Mining & Milling Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1889
- North Noonday Mining Co. v. Orient Mining Co.United States Circuit Court · 1880
3Cited by3 opinions
- S. H. P. Vevelstad, William L. Pape, and Aurora Nickel Company, a Corporation v. E. Miles FlynnCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1956
- J. E. Riley Inv. Co. v. SakowCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1938
- S. H. P. Vevelstad, William L. Pape, and Aurora Nickel Company, a Corporation v. E. Miles FlynnCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1956