Eilers v. Boatmen
Supreme Court of the United States
APPEAL EKOM THE SUPREME COURT OP THE TERRITORY OP UTAH. Action for the settlement of adverse claims to mineral lands under § 2326 Rev. Stat.
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Miller
This, like Chambers v. Harrington, ante, 350, is an appeal from the decree of the Supreme Court of Utah in a contest for a mine carried on under § 2326 of the Revised Statutes.
The appellant does not deny the prmrity of location, or the .continuous work on the Nabob — the claim of the appellee— but insists that the notice and description of the claim of the defendants were not sufficient to apprise other prospectors of its precise location.
This, in the first place, is matter of' fact, and was found by the court below against appellant, for we think that the following language, though called by…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Stringfellow v. CainSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
- Hecht v. BoughtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
3Cited by19 opinions
- Bear Lake & River Water Works & Irrigation Co. v. GarlandSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Harrison v. PereaSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Idaho & Oregon Land Improvement Co. v. BradburySupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- De La Rama v. De La RamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
- Bismark Mountain Gold Mining Co. v. North Sunbeam Gold Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1908
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.