Arizona Commercial Mining Co. v. Iron Cap Copper Co.
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On report. This ease embraces two distinct equity proceedings wherein the Arizona Commercial Mining Company is complainant in each bill, and the Iron Cap Copper Company is respondent in each bill. Both plaintiff and defendant corporations were organized under the laws of Maine, and each conducts mining operations in the State of Arizona, and the business of each, aside from its actual mining operations, is carried on in the City of Boston, Massachusetts.
Read the full summary
On report. This ease embraces two distinct equity proceedings wherein the Arizona Commercial Mining Company is complainant in each bill, and the Iron Cap Copper Company is respondent in each bill. Both plaintiff and defendant corporations were organized under the laws of Maine, and each conducts mining operations in the State of Arizona, and the business of each, aside from its actual mining operations, is carried on in the City of Boston, Massachusetts. In one of the two bills, referred to as the “ore suit” the plaintiff seeks to recover for ores mined and extracted by the defendant frqm…
1Opinion of the CourtDeasy, J.
To differentiate the above entitled suits, the parties being the same in each, we refer to the first as the “Ore Case” and the other as the “Water Case.” The parties are Maine corporations operating mines on contiguous claims in Arizona.
Equity jurisdiction is invoked under R. S., Chap. 82, Sec. 6, Paragraph XI. Also section 8.
Substantially identical suits were first brought in Massachusetts, there reported to the full bench and after hearing ordered dismissed. Arizona Mining Co. v. Iron Cap Copper Co., 233 Mass., 522; 124 N. E., 281.
It is contended by the defendant that the Massachusetts…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Schulenberg v. HarrimanSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Stone v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Ellenwood v. Marietta Chair Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Howarth v. LombardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1900
- Unger v. MooneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Arizona Commercial Mining Co. v. Iron Cap Copper Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1925
- Judkins v. Saint Joseph's College of MaineDistrict Court, D. Maine · 2007
- Turner v. Capitol Motors Transportation Co.District Court, D. Maine · 1963
- Arizona Commercial Mining Co. v. Iron Cap Copper Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1925
- Koster v. (American) Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.