Bunker Hill & Sullivan Mining & Concentrating Co. v. Shoshone Min. Co.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
'Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern Division of the District of Idaho. As a plea in bar to the complaint of plaintiff, the defendant says: “That at a term of the United States circuit court for the district of Idaho, Northern division, which was held in the year 1895, the predecessors in interest, to wit, Royal J. Rutter and F. W. Bradley, under whom the above-named plaintiff claims in the above-entitled action, exhibited their bill of…
Read the full summary
'Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern Division of the District of Idaho. As a plea in bar to the complaint of plaintiff, the defendant says: “That at a term of the United States circuit court for the district of Idaho, Northern division, which was held in the year 1895, the predecessors in interest, to wit, Royal J. Rutter and F. W. Bradley, under whom the above-named plaintiff claims in the above-entitled action, exhibited their bill of complaint in this honorable court against this defendant, claiming to be the owners of the Kirby fraction lode mining claim,…
1Opinion of the CourtHawley, District Judge
(after stating the facts as above). This is a, suit to quiet plaintiff’s title (appellant herein) to a lode mining claim situated in Shoshone county, Idaho, known as and called the “Kirby Fraction.” The bill of complaint is in the usual form in actions of this character. The suit does not purport to he brought, nor is it instituted, in support of any adverse claim died in the lamí office in any patent proceeding. The bill of complaint herein shows jurisdiction of the court hy reason of diversity of citizenship of the contending parties, the jurisdictional value being alleged. To plaintiff’s…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- STANTON v. Embrey, AdministratorSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Hughes v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1866
- Shoshone Mining Co. v. RutterSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Gordon v. GilfoilSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
- Smith v. McNealSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Williams v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co.District Court, S.D. California · 1953
- Meyer v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1936
- Consolidated Ordnance Co. v. MarshMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1917
- Brown v. FletcherCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1910
- Smith v. SperlingDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1953
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.