Home/U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California/Pennsylvania Consol. Min. Co. v. Grass Valley Exploration Co.

Pennsylvania Consol. Min. Co. v. Grass Valley Exploration Co.

117 F. 509, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 5114
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California
DecidedJuly 28, 1902
DocketNos. 12,973,12,894
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 117 F. 509 (Pennsylvania Consol. Min. Co. v. Grass Valley Exploration 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
Pennsylvania Consol. Min. Co. v. Grass Valley Exploration Co., 117 F. 509, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 5114 (circtndca 1902).

Opinion

MORROW, Circuit Judge.

The first-named action is in trespass, and was instituted in the superior court of Nevada county of this state on August 6, 1900, by the Pennsylvania Consolidated Mining Company, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of California, against the Grass Valley Exploration Company, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of West Virginia, to recover the value of ore extracted by the Grass Valley Exploration Company from certain underground work[510]*510ings alleged by the Pennsylvania Company to be in and upon the Pennsylvania quartz vein or lode. The case was transferred to this court upon the petition of the defendant showing that the matter and amount in dispute in the cause exceeds $2,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and that the controversy is between citizens of different states. The second-named action is in ejectment, and was commenced in this court by the Grass Valley Exploration Company on February 16, 1900, against the Pennsylvania Consolidated Mining Company, to recover possession of the quartz vein or lode described in the first action, and embraced within the Pennsylvania underground works underneath the surface properties belonging to the Grass Valley Exploration Company. By stipulation the two' cases were tried together by the court without the intervention of a jury. By further stipulation, dated April 17, 1901, it was agreed between the parties to the actions that until the court should have tried the issues as to the title, ownership, and right of possession, neither party should be called upon to offer or introduce evidence as to any damage which they or either of them might have sustained by reason of the alleged wrongful acts of the other; and that when the court should announce its decision upon said issues, and should determine what, as matter of law, were the respective rights of the parties in and to the properties in controversy, and should determine by said decree the ownership of the portions of said properties in dispute, the causes should be referred to a referee or commissioner to be designated by the court, for the purpose of taking testimony upon the question of damages to which the respective parties might bé entitled. It was further agreed that the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value of $2,000. In referring hereafter to the parties to these actions, the Pennsylvania Consolidated Mining Company will be designated as the “Pennsylvania Company,” and the Grass Valley Exploration Company as the “Grass Valley Company.”

The mining ground in controversy in these two actions is located in Grass Valley, in this state. The Pennsylvania Company claims the right to carry on the mining operations in which it is engaged underneath certain surface rights owned by the Grass Valley Company upon the alleged fact that all of its underground workings were made in the orderly pursuit of mining operations in developing, following, and extracting ore from a vein or lode the apex of which is within the surface boundary of the claims of the Pennsylvania Company; that such Vein or lode is continuous and persistent from its apex at the surface, within the boundary of the claims of the Pennsylvania Company, to the lowest workings in the mine; and, by reason of this fact, that the title to the claim or lode is in the Pennsylvania Company. The, surface boundaries of the properties owned by the parties to these actions are shown by the annexed diagram.

The claims designated on the diagram as the “Pennsylvania,” “Liberty Hill,” and “Noon Summer,” belong to the Pennsylvania Company. The title of the company to the Pennsylvania claim is derived from the United States by a patent dated December 16, r879,

[511]

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

Related

Empire Star Mines Co. v. Butler
145 P.2d 49 (California Court of Appeal, 1944)
Ames v. Empire Star Mines Co., Ltd.
110 P.2d 13 (California Supreme Court, 1941)
Alameda Mining Co. v. Success Mining Co.
161 P. 862 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1916)
Grand Central Min. Co. v. Mammoth Min. Co.
83 P. 648 (Utah Supreme Court, 1905)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
117 F. 509, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 5114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pennsylvania-consol-min-co-v-grass-valley-exploration-co-circtndca-1902.