Quilp Gold Mining Co. v. Republic Mines Corp.

165 P. 57, 96 Wash. 439, 1917 Wash. LEXIS 579
CourtWashington Supreme Court
DecidedMay 19, 1917
DocketNo. 13751
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 165 P. 57 (Quilp Gold Mining Co. v. Republic Mines Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Washington Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Quilp Gold Mining Co. v. Republic Mines Corp., 165 P. 57, 96 Wash. 439, 1917 Wash. LEXIS 579 (Wash. 1917).

Opinion

Holcomb, J.

— This is an appeal from parts of a judgment and decree in an action brought by appellant against the Republic Mines Corporation and the other respondents and defendants claiming under it, to establish the ownership of appellant in and to the Quilp Lode Mining Claim, government survey No. 675, in and to all lodes, veins, ores, minerals, ore bodies and deposits of ore lying within the surface boundaries of the Quilp Lode Mining claim, extended vertically downward, and to declare that respondents and defendants have no right, title, estate, interest, claim or right of possession therein, ,and to enjoin and restrain them from asserting [441]*441any right therein and from entering or trespassing thereon or mining or removing the ores therein, and to quiet the title of the appellant in all ore bodies of every description lying east of the west line of the Quilp Mining claim, extended vertically downward and lying south of the north end line of the Quilp Mining claim, extended down vertically and which may apex within the lines of the Surprise Lode Mining claim, and to compel the execution and delivery of a deed of conveyance by respondents to appellant of all the ore bodies above described, according to the terms and conditions of a certain contract made and entered into between appellant and the Republic Mines Corporation or Imperator Company.

The pleadings and issues in the case are very multifarious and intricate, some of them being immaterial or of only incidental importance as the case comes here and in view of our disposition of the case. Upon the trial of the action, the court entered a decree in favor of the appellant generally, but containing certain exceptions and provisions, from which appellant prosecutes this appeal.

Appellant produced proofs to sustain substantially the following facts: For many years prior to the month of October, 1912, appellant had been, and ever since has been, the owner of the Quilp Lode Mining claim, survey No. 375, in Ferry county, Washington, and during such time the Republic Mines Corporation and its successors in interest have been the owners of the Lone Pine, Last Chance, and of the Surprise Lode Mining claim, survey No. 363, a prior location and claim in that county. The Quilp and Surprise claims overlap in their surveys. The relative situation of the two claims is shown by the following map or diagram, to which reference is made.

[442]*442

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

Related

Silver Surprize, Inc. v. Sunshine Mining Co.
547 P.2d 1240 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
165 P. 57, 96 Wash. 439, 1917 Wash. LEXIS 579, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quilp-gold-mining-co-v-republic-mines-corp-wash-1917.