Gildersleeve v. New Mexico Mining Co.
Supreme Court of the United States
Appeal from the supreme court of the territory of new MEXICO. The relief sought by appellant in the lower court was to have the New Mexico Mining Company, to whom certain letters patent were issued by the United States for a Mexican mining grant, declared a trustee for his benefit to the extent of a one fourth interest in the land covered by said letters patent.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the supreme court of the territory of new MEXICO. The relief sought by appellant in the lower court was to have the New Mexico Mining Company, to whom certain letters patent were issued by the United States for a Mexican mining grant, declared a trustee for his benefit to the extent of a one fourth interest in the land covered by said letters patent. The Territorial District Court held that the statute of limitations barred the suit, and therefore dismissed the bill. The Supreme Court of The Territory affirmed the decree of dismissal, 27 Pac. Rep. 318, holding the plea of the…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice White
The appeal being from a judgment of a territorial court, and no exceptions to rulings of the court on the admission or rejection of testimony being presented for our consideration, we are limited in our review to a determination of the question whether the facts found are sufficient to sustain the judgment rendered. Haws v. Victoria Copper Mining Co., 160 U. S. 303, 312.
In the trial court, the controversy between Gildersleeve and the mining company was disposed of upon the ground that the statute of limitations barred complainant’s right to recover. The Supreme Court of the Territory,…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Galliher v. CadwellSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Johnson v. TowsleySupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- Hammond v. HopkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Speidel v. HenriciSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Lane & Bodley Co. v. LockeSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- Interstate Commerce Commission v. Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Ramirez v. CollierSupreme Court of the United States · 2022
- Penn Mutual Life Insurance v. AustinSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Harrison v. PereaSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Gillons v. Shell Co. of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1936
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.