Deeney v. Mineral Creek Milling Co.
New Mexico Supreme Court
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT. 1. An ordinary declaration in ejectment is sufficient, under sections 2290, 2291, Comp. Laws of 1897, to present all the questions involved between an applicant for patent for a mining claim, and an adverse claimant. 2. In New Mexico a preliminary or discovery notice of location • of a mining claim is unknown to our laws, and a locator, as against a subsequent locator who enters peaceably, must post sucb a notice as wben a copy thereof is recorded the…
Read the full summary
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT. 1. An ordinary declaration in ejectment is sufficient, under sections 2290, 2291, Comp. Laws of 1897, to present all the questions involved between an applicant for patent for a mining claim, and an adverse claimant. 2. In New Mexico a preliminary or discovery notice of location • of a mining claim is unknown to our laws, and a locator, as against a subsequent locator who enters peaceably, must post sucb a notice as wben a copy thereof is recorded the record will meet the requirements of section 2324 of the Revised Statutes of the United States. 3. In instructing the…
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OP THE COURT.
PARKER, J.
1 The first point presented is as to the sufficiency of the declaration filed by contestant. An ordinary declaration in ejectment was filed within the required time, to which was filed the ordinary plea of not guilty. No mention was made in the declaration or plea of any of the Land Office proceedings. Long after the expiration of the thirty days following the filing of the adverse claim, contestant filed an amended declaration, setting up the Land Office proceedings, and other facts concerning its right to possession of the premises in controversy. Applicants…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Haws v. Victoria Copper Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Richmond Mining Co. v. RoseSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Bennett v. HarkraderSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Wolverton v. NicholsSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Lippincott v. Shaw Carriage Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana · 1885
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Johnson v. RyanNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1939
- Oregon King Min. Co. v. BrownCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1902
- Cravens v. DegnerNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1929
- Merchant Livestock Company v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.District Court, D. New Mexico · 2023