Bennett v. Harkrader
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA. William Bennett, for himself and as the administrator of M. Gibbons, deceased, having made application in the United States land office at Sitka, Alaska, for a patent to what is known as the Aurora lode mining claim, the defendant in error, George Harkrader, filed an adverse claim in that office, and subsequently, under the authority of Rev. Stat., § 2326, commenced in the District Court of the…
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA. William Bennett, for himself and as the administrator of M. Gibbons, deceased, having made application in the United States land office at Sitka, Alaska, for a patent to what is known as the Aurora lode mining claim, the defendant in error, George Harkrader, filed an adverse claim in that office, and subsequently, under the authority of Rev. Stat., § 2326, commenced in the District Court of the United States for the District of Alaska this action in support of such claim. After answer and reply, the case came on for…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Bbewee
The ruling of the court in admitting the. location certificate is the first' matter presented for our consideration. The ground of the objection is the uncertainty in the description. Section 2324, Rev. Stat., provides that “ the location must be distinctly marked on the ground, so that its boundaries can be readily traced. All records of mining claims hereafter made shall contain the name or names of the locators, the date of the location, and such a description of the claim or claims located by reference to some natural object or permanent monument as will identify the claim.”
It is obvious…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hammer v. Garfield Mining & Milling Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Iron Silver Mining Co. v. CampbellSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Sherman v. JeromeSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
3Cited by28 opinions
- Malony v. AdsitSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
- Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. RobertsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
- Sil-Flo Corporation v. BowenArizona Supreme Court · 1965
- Bismark Mountain Gold Mining Co. v. North Sunbeam Gold Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1908
- California Oil & Gas Co. of Arizona v. MillerU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern California · 1899
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.