Doe v. Waterloo Min. Co.

54 F. 935, 1893 U.S. App. LEXIS 2516
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern California
DecidedMarch 27, 1893
DocketNo. 183
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 54 F. 935 (Doe v. Waterloo Min. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Doe v. Waterloo Min. Co., 54 F. 935, 1893 U.S. App. LEXIS 2516 (circtsdca 1893).

Opinion

ROSS, District Judge.

The Silver King is a quartz lode mining claim situate in the Calico mining district of San Bernardino county, Cal., for which, at the time of the commission of the acts for which this suit is brought, the defendant held a certificate of purchase, followed, since the bringing of the suit, by a government patent which the defendant by supplemental answer has set up. The Oriental No. 2 and the Red Cloud are also quartz lode mining claims, lying immediately south of and adjoining the Silver King, for which the complainant, at the time of the commission of , the acts complained of, held certificates of purchase from the United States. The purpose of the suit on complainant’s part is to enjoin the defendant from entering under the surface of the Oriental and Red Cloud claims, and mining and extracting ore from what defendant claims to be a continuation of a lode having its apex within the surface lines of the Silver King claim. The Silver King was originally located by T. C. Warden, for himself, John King, and some others, on the 6th day of April, 1881; and as thus located its end lines were not parallel. There was a divergence of the west end line of 259 feet in the direction of the dip of the ore bodies. In 1882, with the intention of making application for a patent for the claim, Warden and his associates caused it to be surveyed by United States Deputy Surveyor Dunlap who, in making his survey, drew in the southwest corner of the claim so as.to make the end lines parallel, thus leaving out of the survey a triangulan piece of the original location. In all other respects the survey was made in accordance with the original location, and the lines and corners of the survey were plainly and distinctly marked on the ground.' With the action of the surveyor, in thus leaving out of the claim a triangular piece of the original location, Warden and his associates were dissatisfied, and they declined to accept the survey, or to make any application * for a patent based upon it. But in 1884 they sold'and conveyed their interest in the claim to Bradley, Metcalf, Sanger, and others, the grantors of the defendant, and thereupon Bradley and his associates adopted the- Dunlap survey, caused him to again go over the lines of his survey and monuments, and thereupon, and on the 21st of September, 1885, filed their application in the proper United States land office for a patent based upon that survey, and describing the ground included therein as the “Silver King Claim.” On the 20th of July, 1887, the defendant herein, as grantee of Bradley and his associates, was permitted to enter the claim, and on the 10th of January, 1891, the government issued to the defendant its patent for the claim in accordance with the lines of the Dunlap survey. The certificates of purchase for the Oriental Ho. 2 and Red Cloud [937]*937claims were issued to the complainant on the 24th of September, 1887, based upon surveys thereof made June 4, 1887, in accordance with relocations of those claims made by complainant on the 9th of May, 1887. When the original locations of the Oriental Rio. 2 and the Red Cloud were made does not appear.

Three questions have been presented, and ably and elaborately argued by counsel, and upon one of which a large mass of testimony has been taken.

The first is presented by the defendant, and is to the effect that the certificates, which it is conceded are to be regarded, for the pun poses of this case, with like force and effect as patents, held by the complainant, confer upon him no right to anything except the surface of the ground within the surface lines of the claims, and such veins, lodes, or ledges as have their apex within such surface lines, and that the holder of such certificates has no cause of complaint against any one who enters and mines, even without any right in himself, under the surface of such lode claim, so long as he leaves the surface undisturbed, and does not interfere with any vein, lode, or ledge having its apex within the surface lines of such claim or claims. To this I cannot assent. It is true it was so decided in Montana Co. v. Clark, 42 Fed. Rep. 626. But the opposite conclusion was reached in what I consider the better reasoned case of Duggan v. Davey, (Dak.) 26 N. W. Rep. 887. It is entirely trae that whoever takes a grant of a lode claim takes it subject to the provision of the statute reserving to locators of other mining claims-the right to follow under its surface, for the purpose of extracting the ore therefrom, any vein, lode, or ledge, the top or apex of which lies within the surface lines of such other location. Rev. St. § 2322. But until some one comes clothed with that reserved right, the holder of a government patent or certificate has, I think, the just and legal right to say, “Hands off of any and everything within my surface lines extending vertically downward.” The mere possessor of a mining claim under license from the government would have (hat right; a fortiori, the holder of a conveyance from the government. For it must be remembered that the extralateral right conferred by the statute is but an incident of a valid lode location. By the express language of the statute the right given is to “the locators of all mining locations,” etc. Without such location the incidental extralateral light does not exist. It could not therefore exist in a stranger to the paramount source of title. While the real object of grants of the nature of those under consideration is the mineral, the statute makes provision, as stated in Duggan v. Davey, for the disposition of “lands valuable for mineral.” “It is the lands’ in which mineral deposits are found which are ‘open to purchase.’ It is ‘land’ claimed and located for valuable mineral deposits which is the subject of application for patent, and where patent of the United States issues it is for the ‘land’ at so much per acre.”

Except as modified by the statute, no reason is perceived why one who acquires the ownership or possession of such lands should not hold them with and subject to the incidents of ownership and «pos[938]*938session at common law. That seems to Rave been the view of Judge Hallett in Mining Co. v. Fitzgerald, 4 Morr. Min. Rep. 385, where be says:

“Witlim the lines of each location the owner shall be regarded as having full right to all that may he found, until some one can show a clear title to It as a part of some lode or vein having its top or' apex in other territory. In other words, we may say that there is a presumption of .ownership in every locator as to the territory covered by his location, and within his own lines he shall bo regarded as the owner of all valuable deposits until some one else shall show by preponderance of testimony that such deposits belong to another lode having its top or apex elsewhere.”

This must also have been the opinion of the supreme court in Iron Silver Min. Co. v. Elgin Mining & Smelting Co., 118 U. S. 196, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1177, otherwise the judgment in that case could not have been affirmed; for the defendant there offered to prove, among other things, that the vein, lode, or ledge it admitted it had followed from the Stone claim into and under the surface of the G-ilt Edge claim, and in and upon which it admitted it was mining, had its apex within the surface, lines of the Stone claim, and—

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

Related

Grant v. Pilgrim
95 F.2d 562 (Ninth Circuit, 1938)
Southern Development Co. v. Endersen
200 F. 272 (D. Nevada, 1912)
Roberts v. Southern Pac. Co.
186 F. 934 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern California, 1911)
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)
Peabody Gold-Min. Co. v. Gold Hill Min. Co.
97 F. 657 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California, 1899)
Golden Reward Min. Co. v. Buxton Min. Co.
79 F. 868 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of South Dakota, 1897)
South End Mining Co. v. Tinney
35 P. 89 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1894)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
54 F. 935, 1893 U.S. App. LEXIS 2516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doe-v-waterloo-min-co-circtsdca-1893.