Swanson v. Sears
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO. The facts, which involve the construction of the mining law of the United States, are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Holmes
The defendant in error Kettler applied for a patent for a mining claim. The plaintiff in error filed an adverse claim under Rev. Stat., § 2326, and then brought this complaint to establish his right of possession to the area in dispute. The facts are these: In 1881 the defendant’s claim, then called Emma No. 2, was located, running north and south. In 1889 the plaintiff’s claim, Independence No. 2, was located,, running east and west, its westerly end overlapping the southerly end of Emma No. 2, and the discovery being within the overlapping part. Kettler, who then had Emma No. 2, failed,…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Belk v. MeagherSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Gwillim v. DonnellanSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Del Monte Mining & Milling Co. v. Last Chance Mining & Milling Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Clipper Mining Co. v. Eli Mining & Land Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1904
- Creede & Cripple Creek Mining & Milling Co. v. Uinta Tunnel Mining & Transportation Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1905
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Cole v. RalphSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
- Davis v. NelsonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1964
- Bagg v. New Jersey Loan CompanyArizona Supreme Court · 1960
- Independence Placer Mining Co. v. HellmanIdaho Supreme Court · 1941
- Inman v. OllsonOregon Supreme Court · 1958
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.