Star Mining Co. v. Federal Mining & Smelting Co.

265 F. 881, 1920 U.S. App. LEXIS 1476
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMay 17, 1920
DocketNo. 3228
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 265 F. 881 (Star Mining Co. v. Federal Mining & Smelting Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Star Mining Co. v. Federal Mining & Smelting Co., 265 F. 881, 1920 U.S. App. LEXIS 1476 (9th Cir. 1920).

Opinion

ROSS, Circuit Judge.

The appellant, owner of the Evening Star, Evening Star Fraction, and Mary R. Fraction patented lode mining claims, brought this suit in the court below to enjoin the defendant thereto (the appellee here) from extracting ore from beneath the [882]*882surface of the Evening Star and Mary R. Fraction claims, and for an accounting of the ore theretofore extracted therefrom; the defendant to the suit claiming and asserting the right thereto by reason of its alleged right to follow a vein apexing in the patented lode claims,. Grouse and Iron Crown, owned by it, it being also the owner of the patented lode claims, Morning1 and Noonday Fraction. All of the claims mentioned are situated in the great Coeur d’Alene mining district of the state of Idaho, the valuable ores of which district are largely composed of lead, zinc, and silver. The case involving a very large amount of money, a number of the most eminent geologists and mining engineers of the country were employed by the respective parties to the suit, who made examinations of the ground and testified at great length. The result of the trial was a decree in favor of the defendant, from which decree the present appeal comes.

The bill alleged, among other things, the complainant’s ownership of the Evening Star and Mary R. Fraction claims, within each of which there was a vein or lode of rock in place bearing lead, silver, zinc, and other valuable metals, extending lengthwise thereof, of which claims the complainant was in the exclusive possession, except as interfered with by the acts of the defendant complained of; that the defendant owned the Morning mine, adjoining the Evening Star on the east, and had by means of underground workings therein secretly and without the knowledge of the complainant penetrated at great depth under the surface of the Evening Star and Mary R. Fraction, and into and upon the ore bodies therein, and extracted large quantities of ore therefrom, exceeding in value $500,000; that in the month of January, 1913, in connection with an option which the defendant then secured from the stockholders of the complainant upon their stock, the complainant and defendant entered into a contract by the terms of which the latter was allowed to make certain developments in the ground of the complainant, agreeing, however, that it would not remove any ore therefrom, except such as was occasioned by the development work; that the only development work so made by the defendant, of which the complainant was aware, was at and above No. 5 tunnel level of the Morning mine, and that the complainant had no knowledge of the alleged surreptitious work done by the defendant, and extraction pf ores, until November, 1916, which work and extraction the defendant threatens to continue.

The defendant in its answer, after making certain denials of the allegations of the bill, alleged in substance that it had made excavations and extracted ore from beneath the surface of the Evening Star and Mary R. Fraction claims, but within a vein apexing within the Grouse and Iron Crown lode mining claims owned by it, and that its patent from the government for the Grouse and Iron Crown claims was issued prior to the patent issued to the complainant for the Evening Star claim, and that the conflict area (shown upon the plats hereinafter inserted) between the Grouse and Evening Star claims was included within the prior patent to the Grouse, and that the conflict area [883]*883between the Iron Crown claim and the Evening Star was included within the patent to the Iron Crown; and, as affirmative matter, the defendant alleged its ownership of the Grouse and Iron Crown claims* and alleged that within each of them there is a vein or lode of rock in place, of which it is the owner, extending lengthwise of and through the said Iron Crown claim for a distance of about 1,000 feet east from the west line of the Grouse claim, where it passes through the north boundary line thereof; that the apex of such vein or lode is within the surface boundaries of the Grouse and Iron Crown claims to that extent, and has a downward course northerly, and on such downward course extends outside of and indefinitely beyond the northern boundary side line of the Grouse and Iron Crown claims, into and beneath the surface of the Evening Star and Mary R. Fraction claims, and that all of the work and extraction of ores beneath the surface of the Evening Star and Mary R. Fraction claims was made by the defendant upon and within the vein apexing within the Grouse and Iron Crown claims, in pursuance of the defendant’s alleged extralateral rights. Those alleged rights on the part of the defendant to the suit were put in issue by the complainant’s reply to the cross-bill.

On the trial the contention of the defendant was that the work done and the ore extracted by it from beneath the surface of the Evening Star and Mary R. Fraction claims was upon a vein which apexed within its Grouse and Iron Crown claims, crossing their lines in such a way as conferred upon the defendant the extralateral rights defined by section 2322 of the Revised Statutes (Comp. St. § 4618); while the contention on behalf of the complainant was that the vein upon which the work in question was done and from which the ore in controversy was extracted was a broad lode bisected upon the surface by the common side line of the Evening Star and. Grouse, and by the common side line of the Evening Star and Iron Crown claims, and that as to both the Grouse and the Iron Crown the Evening Star claim has priority, and therefore carried the ownership of all of the ore of the lo'de or vein beneath the surface of the Evening Star and Mary R. Fraction to the west end line of the Evening Star.

The court below adjudged and decreed, among other things, that by virtue of its ownership of the Grouse and Iron Crown claims the defendant is the owner of the vein in controversy and entitled to the possession thereof; that the hanging wall or northern limit of the said vein, to the extent that it has been worked vertically beneath the surface of the Evening Star, Evening Star Fraction, and Mary R. Fraction claims, is “5 feet northerly from the existing levels, winzes, raises, inclines, and stopes heretofore excavated by the defendant in its working beneath the surface of said claims”; that the Grouse claim was located prior to the location of any of the complainant's said claims, and is senior in date of location and superior in mining rights accruing by reason thereof over any and all of the said claims of the complainant; that the Iron Crown claim was located prior to the location of the Evening Star Fraction and the Mary R. Fraction claims, [884]*884and subsequent to the location of thé Evening Star claim, and is superior in mining rights accruing by reason of location to said Evening Star Fraction and Marj R. Fraction claims, and inferior to the Evening Star claim, and further adjudged and decreed that all claims of the complainant and of all persons claiming or to claim by, through, or under it, to any portion of the’vein adjudged by the decree to be the property of the defendant, are invalid and groundless; and that the defendant’s title to such portions thereof, and to all ores and minerals therein contained, be quieted against the complainant, and perpetually enjoining it from asserting any claim thereto, or from entering into or . upon any portion thereof.

The court found that the decision of the case did not require the determination of the limits of the vein to the south, and accordingly did not undertake to fix them — the dip being northerly.

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)
Globe Mining Co. v. Anderson
318 P.2d 373 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1957)
Empire Star Mines Co. v. Butler
145 P.2d 49 (California Court of Appeal, 1944)
Moulton Mining Co. v. Anaconda Copper Mining Co.
23 F.2d 811 (Ninth Circuit, 1928)
Tom Reed Gold Mines Co. v. United Eastern Mining Co.
209 P. 283 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
265 F. 881, 1920 U.S. App. LEXIS 1476, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/star-mining-co-v-federal-mining-smelting-co-ca9-1920.