Arizona Commercial Mining Co. v. Iron Cap Copper Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract or tort, (hereinafter called “The Ore Action”) begun by trustee process, by a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Maine and having a usual place of business in Boston against a corporation also organized under the laws of the State of Maine and having a usual place of business in Boston, the subject matter of the action being a controversy as to the ownership of certain ore extracted by the defendant from mines in the State of Arizona.
Read the full summary
Contract or tort, (hereinafter called “The Ore Action”) begun by trustee process, by a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Maine and having a usual place of business in Boston against a corporation also organized under the laws of the State of Maine and having a usual place of business in Boston, the subject matter of the action being a controversy as to the ownership of certain ore extracted by the defendant from mines in the State of Arizona. Writ dated September 23, 1919. Also an action of Contract, (hereinafter called “The Water Action”) by the same plaintiff against…
1Opinion of the CourtRugg, C. J.
These are actions at law with counts in contract and in tort. In each case the defendant filed a demurrer and also an answer in abatement. In the Superior Court the demurrers were sustained and the answers in abatement adjudged good and the actions were dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
The plaintiff and the defendant each is a corporation organized under the laws of Maine, conducting mining operations in Arizona and having a usual place of business in this Commonwealth.
THE ORE ACTION.
The declaration in the ore action so called alleges that the plaintiff is the owner in fee simple in…
2Cases cited39 opinions
- Barbier v. ConnollySupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fé Railway Co. v. EllisSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Blake v. McClungSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Schulenberg v. HarrimanSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Stone v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Universal Adjustment Corp. v. Midland Bank, Ltd., of LondonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1933
- Paro v. Longwood HospitalMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1977
- Old Colony Railroad v. Assessors of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1941
- Laurin v. DeCarolis Construction Co., Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1977
- Choice v. Texas Co.District Court, N.D. Texas · 1933
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.