In re Elk Park Mining & Milling Co.

101 F. 422, 1899 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14
CourtDistrict Court, D. Colorado
DecidedDecember 26, 1899
DocketNo. 335
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 101 F. 422 (In re Elk Park Mining & Milling Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Colorado primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Elk Park Mining & Milling Co., 101 F. 422, 1899 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14 (D. Colo. 1899).

Opinion

HALLETT, District Judge

(orally). I do not think a mining corporation can be regarded as a trading corporation, or that it is in mercantile pursuits. The mention of printing and publishing companies seems to limit the class of corporations which congress had in mind. They are manufacturing companies, in a sense, and congress thought it necessary to- enumerate them. Certainly a mining company, which is organized for operating a mine and getting precious metals from it, cannot be said to be engaged in any species of trading. I think Judge Wellborn, in calling a sanitarium a trading corporation, was wrong. In re San Gabriel Sanatorium Co. (D. C.) 95 Fed. 271. I do not see how that can be said. Judge Phillips has a better idea of the meaning of the law when he holds that an insurance company is not of that class. In re Cameron Town Mut. Fire, Lightning & Windstorm Ins. Co. (D. C.) 96 Fed. 756. lío one would think, in an ordinary discussion, of calling an insurance com[423]*423pany a trading corporation, although they do a sort of business which is connected with trade, as they insure people who are engaged in trade. I am inclined to think that counsel is correct, in his position that a mining corporation is not a trading or manufacturing corporation, or one engaged in mercantile pursuits. To my mind, congress clearly intended to bring within the terms of this act those corporations which engage in the general business of buying and selling goods. A mining corporation is not of that character. I think the petition ought to be dismissed, as not coming within the terms of the act.

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

Related

United States Hotel Co. v. Niles
134 F. 225 (Sixth Circuit, 1904)
In re H. J. Quimby Freight Forwarding Co.
121 F. 139 (D. Massachusetts, 1903)
In re Surety Guarantee & Trust Co.
121 F. 73 (Seventh Circuit, 1902)
In re White Star Laundry Co.
117 F. 570 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1902)
In re Philadelphia & Lewes Transp. Co.
114 F. 403 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1902)
In re Chesapeake Oyster & Fish Co.
112 F. 960 (D. Colorado, 1902)
In re Morton Boarding Stables
108 F. 791 (S.D. New York, 1901)
In re Woodside Coal Co.
105 F. 56 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1900)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
101 F. 422, 1899 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-elk-park-mining-milling-co-cod-1899.