Legal Opinion
Empire Milling & Mining Co. v. Tombstone Mill & Mining Co.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut
Decided March 29, 1900No. 450PublishedCited by 4 opinions
On Demurrer to Answer.
1Opinion of the Court
TOWNSEND, District Judge.
Demurrers to answer in an action at law. The complaint is in four counts. The causes of action therein alleged arise out of a contract executed by the parties which is as follows :
“Articles of agreement made this 18th day of January, A. D. 1894, between the Tombstone Mill & Mining Company of Connecticut by its general manager, W. J. Cheyney, party of tbe first part, and the Empire Milling & Mining Company of Blaine, by its president, party of the second part.
“First. That said party of the first part, having opened up its mine to within a few feet of the dividing line…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Paul v. VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
- Cooper Manufacturing Co. v. FergusonSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Last Chance Mining Co. v. Tyler Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Del Monte Mining & Milling Co. v. Last Chance Mining & Milling Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Louisville, Evansville, & St. Louis Railroad v. ClarkeSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Last Chance Min. Co. v. Bunker Hill & S. Mining & Concentrating Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1904
- Empire State-Idaho Mining & Developing Co. v. Bunker Hill & Sullivan Mining & Concentrating Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1904
- Tennis Bros. v. Wetzel & T. Ry. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern West Virginia · 1905
- Empire Mill. & Min. Co. v. Tombstone Mill & Min. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut · 1904