Montana Mining Co. v. St. Louis Min. & Mill Co. of Montana
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Montana. Action by the St. Louis Mining &„Milling Company of Montana against the Montana Mining Company, Limited. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. This controversy has been before the courts in one form or another for a. number of years. As the litigation has proceeded, the facts have been stated by the courts and will be found in the reported cases to which reference will be made.
Read the full summary
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Montana. Action by the St. Louis Mining &„Milling Company of Montana against the Montana Mining Company, Limited. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. This controversy has been before the courts in one form or another for a. number of years. As the litigation has proceeded, the facts have been stated by the courts and will be found in the reported cases to which reference will be made. A restatement of the principal features of the controversy will, however, be necessary to a clear understanding of the…
1Opinion of the CourtMorrow, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). It is contended by the Montana Company that the St. Louis Company has no extralateral rights in the Drum Lummon vein underneath the Nine Hour claim. This contention is based upon two facts; (1) That the Drum Lummon vein was not the discovery vein of the St. Louis claim, but is what is called a secondary vein. (2) This secondary vein enters and departs from the St. Louis claim by a side line. Section 2322 of the Revised Statutes (U¿ S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1425) provides that:
*61“The locators of all mining locations * * * on any mineral vein, lode, or ledge,…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Stone v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Ayers v. WatsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Lawson v. United States Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1907
- Sherman v. . KaneNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
- Drumm-Flato Commission Co. v. EdmissonSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- United States v. Standard Oil Co. of CaliforniaDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1937
- Arizona Commercial Mining Co. v. Iron Cap Copper Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1920
- Our Lady of the Rockies, Inc. v. PetersonMontana Supreme Court · 2008
- Chanslor-Canfield Midway Oil Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1920
- Reidy v. MynttiCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1940
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.