Badger Gold Min. & Mill. Co. v. Stockton Gold & Copper Min. Co.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Oregon
In Equity. The Badger Gold Mining & Milling Company, a corporation of the state of California, brought its bill as complainant against the Stockton Gold & Copper Mining Company, a corporation of the state of Washington, as defendant, alleging, in substance, that the complainant is the owner in fee simple of an undivided one-half interest in and to a mining claim in the Elk mining district, Grant county, state of Oregon, known as the Stockton Lode or Mining Claim; that on and…
Read the full summary
In Equity. The Badger Gold Mining & Milling Company, a corporation of the state of California, brought its bill as complainant against the Stockton Gold & Copper Mining Company, a corporation of the state of Washington, as defendant, alleging, in substance, that the complainant is the owner in fee simple of an undivided one-half interest in and to a mining claim in the Elk mining district, Grant county, state of Oregon, known as the Stockton Lode or Mining Claim; that on and prior to January 1, 1894, the land included in said claim was a part of the vacant, unoccupied, public mineral land of…
1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, Circuit Judge
(after stating the case as above). It is clear from the evidence that the complainant’s bill must be dismissed. The bill contained the averment that the complainant was in possession of the disputed premises. This averment was denied by the answer. The proof relied upon by the complainant to sustain its allegation of possession was that it had sunk a drift on a vein apexing in an adjacent claim, had followed the same on its dip beneath the surface of the claim in controversy, and had made side drifts therefrom into the ground underneath the surface of the latter claim. It was admitted that…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Roberts v. Northern Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Chicago & Alton Railroad v. Union Rolling Mill Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Turner v. SawyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Comstock v. HenneberryIllinois Supreme Court · 1872
- Heinze v. Butte & Boston Consolidated Min. Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1903
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- O'Hanlon v. Ruby Gulch Mining Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1913
- Ames Realty Co. v. Big Indian Mining Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Montana · 1906
- Pomeroy v. Sam Thorpe Mining Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1931
- Jackson v. RobertsonCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1985
- Original Consol Mining Co. v. AbbottU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Montana · 1908
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.