Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. Smith
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. ownership of the five and that they are so situated that the sinking of the well upon one will tend to develop, or to prove the oil-bearing character of the remaining claims of his group. There was no need of remedial legislation in cases where discovery had been made on the claims, because such a discovery itself establishes their oil-bearing character.
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. ownership of the five and that they are so situated that the sinking of the well upon one will tend to develop, or to prove the oil-bearing character of the remaining claims of his group. There was no need of remedial legislation in cases where discovery had been made on the claims, because such a discovery itself establishes their oil-bearing character. The mining law requires assessment work as an evidence of good faith. Chambers v. Harrington, 111 U. S. 350, 353; McCullock v. Murphy, 125 Fed. Rep. 147, 149. Work done for discovering…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Pitney
This case presents, for the first time in this court, the question of the meaning aqd effect of an Act of Congress approved February 12, 1903, c. 548, 32 Stat. 825, which reads as follows:
“An Act Defining what shall constitute and providing .for assessments on oil mining claims.
“Be it Enacted, etc., That where oil lands are located under the provisions of title thirty-two, chapter six, Revised Statutes of the United States, as placer mining claims, the annual assessment labor upon such claims may be done upon any one of a group of claims lying contiguous and owned by the same person or…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Smelting Co. v. KempSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Belk v. MeagherSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Burke v. Southern Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- Forbes v. GraceySupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Chrisman v. MillerSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by73 opinions
- Fox Film Corp. v. DoyalSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Andrus v. Charlestone Stone Products Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Cole v. RalphSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
- Francis Skaw v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- South Dakota v. AndrusCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1980
68 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.