Blackburn v. Portland Gold Mining Co.
Citations
- 175 U.S. 571
- 20 S. Ct. 222
- 44 L. Ed. 276
- 1900 U.S. LEXIS 1707
Syllabus
<p>The provision in Rev. Stat. § 2326 for the trial of adverse claims to a mining patent “ by a court of competent jurisdiction,” does not relate to any particular court, state or Federal; but it was the intention of Congress in this legislation to leave open to suitors all courts competent to determine the question of the right of possession.</p> <p>A controversy between rival claimants under that and the previous section can be properly determined by a state court, if the usual conditions of Federal jurisdiction do not exist, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of a State in such case cannot be reviewed by this court, simply because the parties were claiming rights under a Federal statute.</p> <p>Tlie court does not undertake to say that no case can arise under this legislation, which turns upon a disputed construction, and therefore presents a question essentially Federal in its nature.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “court of competent jurisdiction” in 30 U.S.C. § 30 does not “prescribe jurisdiction in any particular court, state or Federal”
- claim to mining patent determined by laws of mining district in which land situated
- claim to mining patent determined by laws of mining district in which land situated
- finding no federal question jurisdiction
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Brown, McKenna, Shiras
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.