Globe Mining Co. v. Anderson

318 P.2d 373, 78 Wyo. 17, 9 Oil & Gas Rep. 787, 1957 Wyo. LEXIS 34
CourtWyoming Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 19, 1957
Docket2761
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 318 P.2d 373 (Globe Mining Co. v. Anderson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wyoming Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Globe Mining Co. v. Anderson, 318 P.2d 373, 78 Wyo. 17, 9 Oil & Gas Rep. 787, 1957 Wyo. LEXIS 34 (Wyo. 1957).

Opinion

*24 OPINION

Mr. Justice Parker

delivered the opinion of the court.

Plaintiff, 1 Globe Mining Company, successor in interest to the partnership of H. D. Hand and Page T. Jenkins, brought a suit in Fremont County to quiet title on ten lode mining claims, Phil Nos.3 — 12. Plaintiff alleged that, as relating to said land, beginning October 2, 1953, it had complied with Federal and Wyoming mining laws pertaining to location of lode claims but in defiance of plaintiff’s interest defendants had entered upon said claims May 5, 1955, over-staking same and attempting to initiate rights therein. On May 12, 1955, the court issued a temporary restraining order against defendants who thereafter filed an answer and cross-petition, denying any rights of plaintiff, alleging themselves to' be the legal owners of a substantial portion of said lands by virtue of compliance with the Federal and Wyoming mining *25 laws on their five lode claims, Andria and Andria Nos. 1 — 4, and praying that title be quieted in them. 2

The trial court in “findings of fact,” expressing views on the law as well as the facts, decided against plaintiff and in favor of defendants, entering judgment accordingly. From the judgment plaintiff has appealed, filing fifty-six specifications of error, fifty-one of these complaining of erroneous findings, two of improper rulings on the admission of evidence, one of the court’s basing judgment on its view of the premises, and one on the denial of plaintiff’s application to reopen the case for the receiving of evidence of the Atomic Energy Commission’s work performed on plaintiff’s claims.

In brief the background of the litigation is as follows: In September 1953 plaintiff by means of airborne scintillation counter determined that there was a highly radioactive anomaly in the area; in October examined the ground on foot, determined its geology to consist of the Wind Kiver formation, a coarse sandstone lying in a relatively horizonal bed or lode with a radioactive count ranging from two to seven times a normal background, took samples from that portion of the area later staked as Phil Nos. 5, 6, 8, and 10, posted location notices, staked the ground, and caused signed copies of the notices to be recorded with the county clerk. In November plaintiff caused a discovery pit or cut to be dug on each of the claims, arranging with a mining engineer to take samples and assay them. (An effort was made to prove that in April 1954 the A. E. C. through some understanding *26 with plaintiff performed drilling work on the claims and made certain assays from samples taken from the claims, but this evidence encountered objection and was excluded by the court.) Beginning in July 1954 Stanley Grant, a geology student sponsored by plaintiff, made a study of the region, including the Phil claims, with a view to completing a thesis for a master’s degree in geology. In August and September 1954 the American Smelting and Refining Company under a lease arrangement with plaintiff made some reconnaissance of the area embraced by the claims, taking at least one sample and preparing an isorad map. On December 31, 1954, the American Smelting and Refining Company relinquished its lease to plaintiff ; and plaintiff then employed Eldridge Lockhart as mining superintendent to look after some 120 claims which plaintiff had in that vicinity and get “the area in hand so that it could be explored and exploited.” Beginning in late December 1954 or early January 1955 and continuing into March, Lockhart according to his testimony did some shallow digging on Phil Nos. 5, 6, 7, and 8 and blocked out material which he later expected to mine.

In May 1955 the defendants discovered the anomaly by airborne means, inspected the ground, decided it was of value, and believing that plaintiff’s location was defective took steps to locate the Andria claims in an area principally within that covered by Phil Nos. 3 — 12, precipitating the action now under consideration.

The trial court in the “findings of fact” lists four essential steps for establishing a valid lode mining claim under the Federal and Wyoming statutes as “discovery,” “discovery working,” “marking of boundaries,” and “filing of certificates of location.” *27 It would serve little purpose to pursue the arguments of the parties on the various specifications of error since the ultimate determination of the case depends largely upon the measure of plaintiff’s compliance with the statutes in accomplishing the four requisite steps.

This court in a case relating to the title of lode mining claims has previously enunciated the well-settled rule that “unless the judgment is without support in, or is clearly against the weight of, the evidence, it will not be set aside.” Columbia Copper Min. Co. v. Duchess Mining, Milling & Smelting Co., 13 Wyo. 244, 79 P. 385, 387. Accordingly, it is desirable that we view the findings herein to determine whether or not each portion thereof is supported by or is clearly against the weight of the evidence, accepting that which is supported and rejecting that which is unsupported.

Proceeding then to “discovery” we find that under the Federal statute “no location of a mining claim shall be made until the discovery of the vein or lode within the limits of the claim located.” R.S. § 2320 (1878), 30 U.S.C. § 23 (1952 ed.).

The parties hereto do not insist that the mining statutes relating to the location of lode claims are inapplicable in the present situation. Nevertheless, a search of the record and a review of current thinking seem to indicate that secondary uranium deposits do not usually occur within clearly defined veins of country rock in the same manner as do most of the minerals with which earlier cases are concerned. Plaintiff both in its evidence and argument stressed the fact that the mineralized area under litigation consisted of a “horizontal lode.” The court repeated this testimony, tacitly, if not actually, approving same; and defend *28 ants, calling attention to the fact that plaintiff has merely assumed such a vein, nevertheless do not challenge it.

The trial court indicated that there must be a discovery of valuable mineral “in a lead, lode, ledge or vein or rock in place,” using each of these terms synonymously ; and no question has been raised by the parties as to this interpretation. 3 Accordingly, we need not pursue any detailed definition of the word lode 4 but instead shall look to the evidence of the parties and the findings of the court.

In the “findings of fact,” the court stated that plaintiff took:

“* * * three samples from the area within the boundaries of what was later staked as Phil Claims numbered *29 6 and 8 and at a point on the boundary line between Phil Claims 5 and 6.

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

Related

Oro Management, LLC v. R.C. Mineral & Rock, LLC
2013 WY 77 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2013)
Walker v. McAnnany
802 P.2d 876 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1990)
Newman v. American National Bank
780 P.2d 336 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1989)
Town of Hurley v. New Mexico Municipal Boundary Commission
614 P.2d 18 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1980)
Mills v. Royse
540 P.2d 767 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1975)
Cities Service Oil Co. v. Pubco Petroleum Corp.
497 P.2d 1368 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1972)
Bunker Chance Mining Co. v. Bex
408 P.2d 170 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1965)
Masek v. Ostlund
358 P.2d 100 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1960)
Western Standard Uranium Company v. Thurston
355 P.2d 377 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1960)
TITANIUM ACTYNITE INDUSTRIES v. McLENNAN
272 F.2d 667 (Tenth Circuit, 1960)
Twing v. Schott
338 P.2d 839 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1959)
Berto v. Wilson
324 P.2d 843 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1958)
Dallas v. Fitzsimmons
323 P.2d 274 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1958)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
318 P.2d 373, 78 Wyo. 17, 9 Oil & Gas Rep. 787, 1957 Wyo. LEXIS 34, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/globe-mining-co-v-anderson-wyo-1957.