Legal Opinion

Steele v. Tanana Mines R.

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided October 1, 1906No. 1,308PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, Circuit Judge

We find it necessary to consider only the second ground on which the court. found the equities with the appellee and dismissed the bill. ,The trial court upon the evidence found that there had been no discovery of mineral sufficient to sustain the placer location. Although in some instances courts have questioned the necessity of an actual discovery of mineral upon gold placer ground, it is established by the decided weight of authority that appropriate discovery is as necessary to the location of a placer claim as to the location of a lode claim. 1 Lindley on Mines, § 437; 20 Am.&…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Chrisman v. MillerSupreme Court of the United States · 1905

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Western Standard Uranium Company v. ThurstonWyoming Supreme Court · 1960
  2. Rummell v. BaileyUtah Supreme Court · 1958
  3. United States v. MobleyDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1942
  4. Jose v. HouckCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1948
  5. United States v. LillibridgeDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1932

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API