Keystone Milling Co. v. Equity Mining Co.

83 P. 190, 47 Or. 628, 1906 Ore. LEXIS 40
CourtOregon Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 23, 1906
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 83 P. 190 (Keystone Milling Co. v. Equity Mining Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Keystone Milling Co. v. Equity Mining Co., 83 P. 190, 47 Or. 628, 1906 Ore. LEXIS 40 (Or. 1906).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Moore

delivered the opinion of the court.

The question to be considered is, where were the boundaries of the Keystone claim originally located ? The transcript shows that in 1881 W. F. Settlemeir located the Wide West quartz mining claim, A. E. Starr the Keystone, and W. B. Carpenter the Green Mountain. These claims, as •evidenced by the notices of location, which were duly recorded, were each 1,500 feet in length and 300 feet in width on each side of a lode, and extended in the order named southwesterly, and were treated by the locators, who were partners in the enterprise, as an entity known as the “Key[630]*630stone Mines.” The location notices contained separate statements as follows: The Wide West: “Running from the Keystone quartz claim northerly. Location on the hillside on the left-hand side of the Left-Hand Fork of Dixie Creek.” The Keystone: “Running from this notice southerly. This location is on the hill on the left-hand side of the Left-Hand Fork of Dixie Creek, running southerly toward what is known as ‘Henry Gulch.’” The Green Mountain: “Said claim runs in a southerly direction from the Henry Gulch south of the Keystone quartz ledge.” The plaintiffs introduced in evidence maps showing that the group of mines is situated in sections 2 and 11, in township 12 S. of range 33 E. of the Willamette Meridian. There is represented on one of these maps ravines marked “Comer Gulch” and south thereof “Henry Gulch,” which are nearly parallel, extending southeasterly and terminating at a stream noted as “Left or South Fork of Dixie Creek”; such creek having-been named “left” contrary to geographical rule by looking up stream. While the group of mines was so owned by the partners, Starr, on January 27, 1885, located westerly thereof another quartz mining claim called the “Colorado”; the notice stating that it extended southerly from Comer Gulch. Settlemeir having parted with his estate in the Keystone Mines, his successors in interest and Starn and Carpenter on July 5,1886, executed to J. Frank Watson a deed to the Keystone, the Wide West, and the Green Mountain claims; the conveyance stating that the Wide West and the Green Mountain claims were northerly and southerly extensions, respectively, of the Keystone. The Keystone Mining & Milling Co. having been incorporated, Watson, on July 12, 1886, executed to it a deed to the mining claims which he purchased. This corporation-operated the mines about four years, when it abandoned the Wide West and Green Mountain claims, whereupon the former was attempted to be relocated, June 24, 1891, [631]*631by W. W. Jones, C. R. Johnson, and W. B. Woodruff, who placed the southern boundary thereof at Comer Gulch calling the claim the “Little Denver.” An amended location of the last named claim was made by the same persons, November 9, 1891, in which the courses and distances from the point of discovery are given; the notice specifying that the claim was situate “on the north side of Comer Gulch, near Main Dixie Creek.” Isham Laurence, having secured the title to the Little Denver, relocated that claim, September 9, 1898, calling it the “Oregon.” Having secured the estate of A. E. Starr and of others in the Colorado claim, he executed a deed thereof and also of the Oregon claim, November 7, 1902, to the Equity Copper & Gold Mining Co., which commenced running tunnels, expending about $23,000 for labor, when it discovered a valuable deposit of gold-bearing ore. The Keystone Mining & Milling Co., on August 24,1903, entered into a contract with the Geiser-Hendryx Investment Co., a corporation, whereby it stipulated to sell and convey to the latter the Keystone quartz mining claim for the sum of $20,000, payable in 18 months, giving possession of the premises.

A. Philbrick, a mining engineer, at the request of the Geiser-Hendryx Investment Co: surveyed what he considered to be the Keystone quartz mining claim, placing the north boundary thereof about 150 feet north of Comer Gulch, and on August 22, 1903, Watson, as president of the Keystone Mining & Milling Co., subscribed the latter’s name to an amended location notice of that claim, corresponding to Philbrick’s survey thereof. Watson thereafter, concluding that such survey was incorrect, employed A. B. Browne, a mining engineer, who surveyed what he considered to be the Keystone claim, placing the north boundary thereof about 800 feet north of Comer Gulch, thereby finding an excess of 228.7 feet on the south end of the claim. The Keystone Mining & Milling Co., on [632]*632December 22,1903, made an amended location of the Keystone claim, according to Browne’s survey, and the Geiser-Hendryx Investment Co., on February 9,1904, located the excess found by Browne, which was called the “Keystone Fraction.” The corporation last mentioned assigned all its interest in the contract for the purchase of the mine to the Keystone Mining Co. If the northern boundary of the Keystone claim is the line located by Browne, the west boundary thereof overlaps the northeast corner of the Colorado claim about 200 feet; the southwest corner of the Keystone Fraction claim being about on the line of the Colorado claim. If, however, the northern boundary of the Keystone claim coincides with the line surveyed by Philbrick, and as found by the trial court, though it overlaps the southern boundary of the Oregon claim, the western boundary of the Keystone claim does not interfere with the eastern boundary of the Colorado claim, and, as no work has been done by the defendant dn the Oregon claim within the boundaries of the Keystone claim, the plaintiffs have sustained no damage and are not entitled to an injunction. The relocation of the northern boundary of the Keystone claim as originally indicated by the locator is necessarily decisive of the issue involved.

J. Frank Watson, as plaintiff’s witness, testified that, when he was negotiating for the purchase of the group of mines, A. E. Starr, one of the locators, pointed out to him what purported to be the boundary common to the Keystone and to the Wide West claims, calling his attention to a stump near an open cut to which, a board was nailed, having thereon location notices of such claims, -which stump stood about 600 or 700 feet north of Comer Gulch, and saying that the point indicated was at the discovery shaft of the Keystone claim. Watson further testified that at that time he made a topographical sketch of the several claims, which, having been introduced in evi[633]*633-dence, has indicated thereon the boundary common to the Wide West and to the Keystone claims located at a winze marked “30 feet deep,” which was dug near the summit •of a hill; the outline showing a deep depression intended to denote Comer Gulch as being situate about the middle of the Keystone claim. The witnesses Justin Henry, Robert ■C. Reed, Richard Hall, W. F. Settlemeir, the locator of the Wide West, and W. B. Carpenter, the locator of the Green Mountain claim, severally testified that the location notice •of the Keystone claim was posted at the point indicated by Watson. The foregoing is a summary of the testimony .given by plaintiffs’ witnesses tending to show that the north bouudary of the Keystone claim was located about •800 feet north of Comer Gulch.

Isham Laurance testified that Starr pointed out to him the Keystone claim as lying south, of Comer Gulch, and J. W.

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

Related

Moyer v. Peabody
148 F. 870 (D. Colorado, 1906)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
83 P. 190, 47 Or. 628, 1906 Ore. LEXIS 40, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keystone-milling-co-v-equity-mining-co-or-1906.