Home/U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California/Consolidated Wyoming Gold Min. Co. v. Champion Min. Co.

Consolidated Wyoming Gold Min. Co. v. Champion Min. Co.

63 F. 540, 1894 U.S. App. LEXIS 2976
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California
DecidedAugust 13, 1894
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 63 F. 540 (Consolidated Wyoming Gold Min. Co. v. Champion Min. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Consolidated Wyoming Gold Min. Co. v. Champion Min. Co., 63 F. 540, 1894 U.S. App. LEXIS 2976 (circtndca 1894).

Opinion

HAWLEY, District Judge.

This is an action of trespass, with a prayer for equitable relief, for an accounting, and an injunction. It was commenced in the superior court of Nevada county, and removed to this court by respondent, upon the ground that it involved a construction of the United States statutes relating to mining claims.

1. A motion was made by complainant to remand the cause to the state court upon the ground that there was a prior judgment in the state court between the same parties, which left no issue to be litigated except the fact and extent of the trespass, and that no federal question was involved. This motion was denied, and a plea, in abatement to the jurisdiction of this court was overruled by the circuit judge. Complainant is the owner of the Wyoming and Ural quartz lodes and mines, for each of which it has a United States patent. The patent for the Wyoming lode was issued September 19,1874, and is based upon a location or occupancy of the lode claim prior to 1872. The patent recites the fact that it is granted under the law of 1866, and the acts amendatory thereof of 1870 and 1872. It grants 2,270.40 linear feet of the Wyoming lode and certain surface ground, which is particularly defined by nudes and bounds. The patent to the Ural lode for 2,000 linear feet and the surface ground was issued May 12, 1880. It recites the fact that it is issued under certain sections of the Revised Statutes of the United States, which includes the statutes of 1860, 1870, and 1872. Both, of said patents contain a grant of the mining premises substantially in the language of section 2322, Rev. St. U. S. The respondent is the owner of the New Year’s and New Year’s Extension, upon which it particularly relies, and of the Climax and certain other claims, which need not be specifically mentioned, and its title there;to is evidenced by a certificate of purchase from the United Slates land office, which is admitted to be equivalent to a patent from the government. The; title of complainant to its Wyoming and Ural claims is prior in point of time to that of the respondent to its claims. There is no dispute whatever as to the surface; lines of the respective claims. It is admitted by complainant that whatever its rights to the Wyoming [542]*542and Ural lodes were prior to its application for a patent, when it had these claims surveyed by the United States surveyor, and permitted him to draw the end lines, it is estopped, under its patent, from any further claim outside of the lines that were fixed by the surveyor, and that its extralateral rights—which constitute the principal bone of contention in this case—are confined to planes drawn downward through the end lines of the survey, and extended indefinitely, and that at a certain depth these end-line planes would come together, and its extralateral rights would be entirely cut off. The former judgment in the state court was rendered in an action brought by the Champion Cold Mining Company (respondent in this action) against the Consolidated Wyoming Company (complainant here). The trespass there alleged was upon the Philip ground belonging to the Champion,—which is not here involved,—■ but the Champion in that action set up its title to the Philip, Champion, Climax, New Year’s, New Year's Extension, and the Annex mining claims, and included the ground in controversy in this action. The question of end lines was there in issue, and the court found that a certain course described in the pleadings was the course of the southern end line of the Ural quartz mine. The question of the junction of the Wyoming and Ural lodes was also presented. The judgment in that case reads as follows:

“Now, therefore, it is considered, adjudged, and decreed that plaintiff have judgment against the defendant for the sum of one hundred and twenty dollars, with its costs therein expended up to the time of filing of the answer to the amended complaint; that plaintiff is not. entitled to any injunction or other relief against defendant; that defendant is entitled to work its Wyoming mine, along and all points below the junction thereof with the Philip mine of plaintiff, and that it is entitled to work both its Wyoming and Ural mines at any point below where either of said mines, on its dip, may unite with the New Year’s or Olimax or New Year’s Extension or Annex mines of the plaintiff; and that defendant have and recover its costs herein expended since the filing of its said answer to amended complaint.”

An appeal was taken to the supreme court, and tbe judgment was affirmed. Champion Min. Co. v. Consolidated Wyoming Gold Min. Co., 75 Cal. 78, 16 Pac. 513. The admissibility of this judgment as evidence was passed upon by the circuit judge in deciding that this court had jurisdiction of this case, and these questions will not be reviewed.

The following diag;ram shows the surface boundaries of the respective claims and the lode lines of the respective lodes as defined and represented in the patents, and contains the stipulation of the parties in regard thereto, and with reference to the former judgment between the same parties in the state court. [See Diagram A.]

The lode lines represented on this diagram are ideal, as distinguished from the actual lines of the lodes as shown by the testimony. The line of outcroppings of the Wyoming and Ural lodes, with the underground workings of the Wyoming and Champion companies,, are shown upon the following diagram. [See Diagram B.]

[0]

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

Related

Silver Surprize, Inc. v. Sunshine Mining Co.
547 P.2d 1240 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1976)
Brugger v. Lee Yim
55 P.2d 564 (California Court of Appeal, 1936)
Arizona Commercial Mining Co. v. Iron Cap Copper Co.
239 P. 290 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1925)
Tom Reed Gold Mines Co. v. United Eastern Mining Co.
209 P. 283 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1922)
Anaconda Copper Min. Co. v. Pilot Butte Min. Co.
156 P. 409 (Montana Supreme Court, 1915)
Stewart Mining Co. v. Ontario Mining Co.
132 P. 787 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1913)
San Francisco Chemical Co. v. Duffield
201 F. 830 (Eighth Circuit, 1912)
Harper v. Hilll
113 P. 162 (California Supreme Court, 1911)
Hodgins v. Hodgins
1909 OK 101 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1909)
Bourne v. Federal Mining & Smelting Co.
243 F. 466 (D. Idaho, 1908)
Grand Central Min. Co. v. Mammoth Min. Co.
83 P. 648 (Utah Supreme Court, 1905)
Ajax Gold Mining Co. v. Hilkey
31 Colo. 131 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1903)
St. Louis Min. & Mill. Co. of Montana v. Montana Min. Co.
113 F. 900 (Ninth Circuit, 1902)
Cosmopolitan Min. Co. v. Foote
101 F. 518 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada, 1900)
Empire Milling & Mining Co. v. Tombstone Mill & Mining Co.
100 F. 910 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut, 1900)
Carson City Gold & Silver Min. Co. v. North Star Min. Co.
83 F. 658 (Ninth Circuit, 1897)
Justice Min. Co. v. Barclay
82 F. 554 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada, 1897)
Republican Min. Co. v. Tyler Min. Co.
79 F. 733 (Ninth Circuit, 1897)
United States v. Guglard
79 F. 21 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern California, 1897)
Fitzgerald v. Clark
30 L.R.A. 803 (Montana Supreme Court, 1895)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
63 F. 540, 1894 U.S. App. LEXIS 2976, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/consolidated-wyoming-gold-min-co-v-champion-min-co-circtndca-1894.