Home/Montana Supreme Court/Anaconda Copper Min. Co. v. Pilot-Butte Min. Co.

Anaconda Copper Min. Co. v. Pilot-Butte Min. Co.

153 P. 1006, 51 Mont. 443, 1915 Mont. LEXIS 127
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Anaconda Copper Min. Co. v. Pilot-Butte Min. Co.. Read the opinion of the Court — 52 Mont. 165 →
Montana Supreme Court·Decided December 22, 1915·No. No. 3,712·Published

Opinion

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BRANTLT

delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff corporation is the owner of the Badger State and Emily lode claims, both patented, situated in Silver Bow [446]*446county. The Badger State is the senior location. Applications for patents for these claims, respectively, were made on January 19, and April 21, 1882, and patents were issued on March 15, 1883, and June 10, 1884. The defendant owns the Pilot claim to the north. The location of this claim was in point of time later than either of the others, but patent was applied for on July 15, 1881, and was issued at a date prior to that of the Badger State or the Emily. As originally located, the lines of all the claims were so laid that the owners are prima facie entitled to extralateral rights. Subjoined Diagram 1 in a general way represents the boundaries of the several claims as they were originally located and as they were finally patented. The dotted lines indicate the boundary lines as originally laid, and the heavy lines the boundaries described in the patents. The Emily veins referred to by some of the witnesses as the north and south veins, enter the claim from the northwest as indicated, and pass into the Badger State approximately at the points B. and A. There is some controversy as to whether these are distinct apices or mark the north and south boundaries of a single broad vein. For the purposes of this appeal it is not important how they are regarded. It is not controverted that they dip to the north and unite in their descent into the earth near the 900-foot level of the Emily, and thereafter constitute a single vein dipping to the north at an angle of about 80 degrees. Below the point of union the vein is in this record referred to as the Badger or Emily vein. The united vein has been developed through the Badger shaft by extensive workings along its strike from a point which is roughly designated by the letter H, north of the south line of the Pilot to a point near the eastern boundary of the Emily. At the point indicated by the letter I, the vein passes on its dip into the Pilot, and from that point toward the northwest the plaintiff’s workings are within the planes of the south boundary of the Pilot. The irregular line S S' represents a branch of the Pilot vein referred to in this controversy as the Pilot Shaft Vein. Whether it is the discovery vein or a branch [447]*447is not important. The irregular line market T T' represents a vein in the lower levels of the Pilot which is referred to as the Pilot South Vein. It is not definitely disclosed by actual

Development whether this has an apex in the Pilot ground distinct from that of the Shaft Vein, but there is evidence tending to show that it has.

[448]*448

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Anaconda Copper Min. Co. v. Pilot-Butte Min. Co., 153 P. 1006, 51 Mont. 443, 1915 Mont. LEXIS 127 (Mo. 1915).

153 P. 1006 (Anaconda Copper Min. Co. v. Pilot-Butte Min. Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cambers v. Lowry
54 P. 816 (Montana Supreme Court, 1898)
Parrot Silver & Copper Co. v. Heinze
62 P. 818 (Montana Supreme Court, 1900)
Parrot Silver & Copper Co. v. Heinze
64 P. 326 (Montana Supreme Court, 1901)
Montana Ore Purchasing Co. v. Butte & Boston Consolidated Mining Co.
65 P. 420 (Montana Supreme Court, 1901)
Finlen v. Heinze
73 P. 123 (Montana Supreme Court, 1903)
Moss v. Goodhart
131 P. 1071 (Montana Supreme Court, 1913)