Lowe v. American Zinc, Lead & Smelting Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Jasper Circuit Court. — Hon. J. D. Perkins, Judge. (1) The rules should have been admitted in evidence. Plaintiffs admitted their claims were under the rules and registrations, and therefore the rules bore directly on the issue of plaintiffs’ possession, for they showed plaintiffs to be mere licensees, not holding possession, and therefore not able to maintaih any action based upon their possession of the lots. Bochester v. Mining Co., 86 Mo. App.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Jasper Circuit Court. — Hon. J. D. Perkins, Judge. (1) The rules should have been admitted in evidence. Plaintiffs admitted their claims were under the rules and registrations, and therefore the rules bore directly on the issue of plaintiffs’ possession, for they showed plaintiffs to be mere licensees, not holding possession, and therefore not able to maintaih any action based upon their possession of the lots. Bochester v. Mining Co., 86 Mo. App. M2; Lunsford v. Lead Co., 5,4 Mo. 426; Boone v. Stover, 66 Mo. 430; Ohynowitch v. M. & S. Co., 74 Mo. 173; McHose v. Ins. Co., 4 Mo.…
1Opinion of the CourtEllison, J.
This is an action of forcible entry and detainer. The judgment in the trial court was for plaintiffs.
It appears that defendant is a mining company and that' plaintiffs were mining on a certain part of defendant’s land under certain mining rules and regulations which are authorized by section 7034, Revised Statutes 1889. After being engaged in mining for some period of time and having the necessary tools and appliances thereon for mining, plaintiffs ceased to work for the space of several months; but they say the-cessation of work was by agreement with defendant. Defendant, however, claimed…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Springfield Foundry & Machine Co. v. ColeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1895
- Boone v. StoverSupreme Court of Missouri · 1877
- Chynowitch v. Granby Mining & Smelting Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1881
- Lunsford v. La Motte Lead Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1873
- Rochester v. Gate City Mining Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1900
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Lytle v. JamesMissouri Court of Appeals · 1903
- Meeks v. Clear Jack Mining Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1910
- Continental Zinc Co. v. Amsden, Leonard & Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1907
- Integrity Mining & Milling Co v. MooreMissouri Court of Appeals · 1908