Yellow Aster Min. & Mill. Co. v. Winchell

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern California

Yellow Aster Min. & Mill. Co. v. Winchell

95 F. 213, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 3152

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern California

DecidedJune 12, 1899

DocketNo. 776

StatusPublished

This text of 95 F. 213 (Yellow Aster Min. & Mill. Co. v. Winchell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Yellow Aster Min. & Mill. Co. v. Winchell, 95 F. 213, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 3152 (circtsdca 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

BOSS, Circuit Judge.

The fact that this suit was brought under and by virtue of section 2326 of the Revised Statutes of the United States does not, I think, exempt the complainant from the necessity of showing that the value of the property in controversy is sufficient to bring it within the requirement of the general statute prescribing the jurisdiction of the circuit courts of the United States. Mining Co. v. Rutter, 31 C. C. A. 223, 87 Fed. 801; Chambers v. Harrington, 111 U. S. 350, 4 Sup. Ct. 428; Strasburger v. Beecher, 44 Fed. 213; Burke v. Concentrating Co., 46 Fed. 644. Whether necessary or not, I think it is also better, in order to save any question in regard to the matter, that the bill show affirmatively, and not by inference only, whether the ground in controversy between the parties is a lode or placer claim. An order will be entered sustaining the demurrer, with leave to the complainant to amend the bill within the usual time, if it shall be so advised.

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

BOSS, Circuit Judge.

The fact that this suit was brought under and by virtue of section 2326 of the Revised Statutes of the United States does not, I think, exempt the complainant from the necessity of showing that the value of the property in controversy is sufficient to bring it within the requirement of the general statute prescribing the jurisdiction of the circuit courts of the United States. Mining Co. v. Rutter, 31 C. C. A. 223, 87 Fed. 801; Chambers v. Harrington, 111 U. S. 350, 4 Sup. Ct. 428; Strasburger v. Beecher, 44 Fed. 213; Burke v. Concentrating Co., 46 Fed. 644. Whether necessary or not, I think it is also better, in order to save any question in regard to the matter, that the bill show affirmatively, and not by inference only, whether the ground in controversy between the parties is a lode or placer claim. An order will be entered sustaining the demurrer, with leave to the complainant to amend the bill within the usual time, if it shall be so advised.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 F. 213, 1899 U.S. App. LEXIS 3152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yellow-aster-min-mill-co-v-winchell-circtsdca-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack