Rochester v. Gate City Mining Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Jasper Circuit Court. — Hon. J. D. Perlcins Judge. (1) The plaintiff Rochester was-a licensee and had no such possession of the land in controversy as would authorize him and his co-plaintiffs to maintain this action. Rules 3 and 4, Mining Rules and Reg.; R. S. 1889, sec. 7034; Desloge v. Pearce, 38 Mo. 588; Lunsford v. Lead Co., 54 Mo. 426;-Boone v. S'tover, 66 Mo. 430; McHose v. Ins. Co., 4 Mo. App. 514; Nelson v. Nelson, 30 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Jasper Circuit Court. — Hon. J. D. Perlcins Judge. (1) The plaintiff Rochester was-a licensee and had no such possession of the land in controversy as would authorize him and his co-plaintiffs to maintain this action. Rules 3 and 4, Mining Rules and Reg.; R. S. 1889, sec. 7034; Desloge v. Pearce, 38 Mo. 588; Lunsford v. Lead Co., 54 Mo. 426;-Boone v. S'tover, 66 Mo. 430; McHose v. Ins. Co., 4 Mo. App. 514; Nelson v. Nelson, 30 Mo. App. 184; Eoundry & Machine Co. v. Cole, 130 Mo. 1, 7; Grubb v. Bayard, 9 Morrison City Mining Rep. 199; Johnstown Iron Co. v. Cambria Iron Go., 9…
1Opinion of the CourtEllison, J.
This is an action of forcible entry and detainer in which plaintiff prevailed in the trial court.
Defendant is a mining company and is a lessee from the owner of the land. The plaintiff was a miner and went upon a designated lot upon defendant’s land to dig for mineral (lead and zinc). Plaintiff took with him some mining tools and had done work in his search for mineral. He went daily on to the land and prosecuted his work under what are sometimes designated as mining rules, which defendant had adopted and which are authorized by section 1034, Eevised Statutes 1889. A disagreement between the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Springfield Foundry & Machine Co. v. ColeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
- Boone v. StoverSupreme Court of Missouri · 1877
- Lunsford v. La Motte Lead Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1873
- DeGraw v. PriorSupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
- Nelson v. NelsonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1888
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Arnold v. BennettMissouri Court of Appeals · 1902
- Lytle v. JamesMissouri Court of Appeals · 1903
- Meeks v. Clear Jack Mining Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1910
- Chitwood v. Lanyon Zinc Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1902
- Lowe v. American Zinc, Lead & Smelting Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1901
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.