Iron Silver Mining Co. v. Cheesman
Citations
- 116 U.S. 529
- 6 S. Ct. 481
- 29 L. Ed. 712
- 1886 U.S. LEXIS 1793
Syllabus
<p>The act of Congress, § 2322 Revised Statutes, gives to the owner of a mineral vein or lode, not only all that is covered by the surface lines of his established claim as those lines are extended vertically, but it gives him the right, to possess and enjoy that lode or vein by following it when it passes outside of those vertical lines laterally.</p> <p>But this right is dependent, outside of the lateral limits of the claim, upon its being the same vein as that within those limits. For the exercise of this right it must appear that the vein outside is identical with and a continuation of the cue inside those lines.</p> <p>The acts of Cougcess use the words vein, lode, or ledge as embracing.a more or less continuous body of mineral, lying within a well-defined boundary of other x-ock, in the mass within which it is found, or, it may be said, to be a body of mineral, or a mineral body of rock within defined boundaries in this general mass.</p> <p>A vein is by no means always a straight line or of uniform dip or thickness, or richness of mineral matter, throughout its course. The cleft or fissure in which a vein is foxxxid may be narrowed or widened in its course, and even closed for a few feet and then found further on, and the mineral deposit may be diminished or totally suspended for a short distance, but, if found again in the same course with the same mineral within that distance, its identity may be presumed.</p> <p>But if the mineral disappears, or the fissure with its walls of the same rock disappears, so that its identity can no longer be traced, the right to pursue it outside of the perpendicular lines of claimants’ survey is gone.</p> <p>Whether any deposit of mineral matter, about which a contest arises before a court or jury, has been shown to belong to one of these veins within a prior location, is a question to be decided by the application of these principles to all the evidence in the case.</p> <p>When the court instructs the jury in a manner suffici
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- approving jury instructions leaving determination of continuity to trier of fact
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Miller
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
32 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- United States v. Iron Silver Mining Co.Supreme Court· 1888-12-17· cited 87×
- Iron Silver Mining Co. v. Mike & Starr Gold & Silver Mining Co.Supreme Court· 1892-02-29· cited 44×
- Buffalo Zinc & Copper Co. v. CrumpSupreme Court of Arkansas· 1902-06-28· cited 24×
- Arizona Commercial Mining Co. v. Iron Cap Copper Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1920-06-23· cited 18×
- Globe Mining Co. v. AndersonWyoming Supreme Court· 1957-11-19· cited 17×
- Stewart Mining Co. v. Ontario Mining Co.Supreme Court· 1915-04-26· cited 15×
- Montana Cent. Ry. Co. v. MigeonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Montana· 1895-06-22· cited 15×
- Hiram B. Webb v. Manuel LujanNinth Circuit· 1992-03-30· cited 14×
- Montana Min. Co. v. St. Louis Min. & Mill. Co. of MontanaNinth Circuit· 1900-05-14· cited 13×
- Silver Surprize, Inc. v. Sunshine Mining Co.Court of Appeals of Washington· 1976-03-04· cited 11×
- Golden v. MurphyNevada Supreme Court· 1909-07-15· cited 11×
- Tom Reed Gold Mines Co. v. United Eastern Mining Co.Arizona Supreme Court· 1922-09-14· cited 10×
- Duffield v. San Francisco Chemical Co.Ninth Circuit· 1913-05-05· cited 10×
- Pepperdine v. KeysCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1961-12-13· cited 8×
- Titanium Actynite Industries v. McLennanTenth Circuit· 1959-12-01· cited 8×
- San Francisco Chemical Co. v. DuffieldEighth Circuit· 1912-11-21· cited 8×
- United States v. Richard P. HaskinsNinth Circuit· 1974-10-25· cited 7×
- Meydenbauer v. StevensD. Alaska· 1897-02-13· cited 7×
- Mammoth Mining Co. v. Grand Central Mining Co.Supreme Court· 1909-03-08· cited 6×
- Edward R. Swoboda v. Pala Mining, Inc., Jean Magee as of the Estate of William Magee and Eduard LinkNinth Circuit· 1988-04-14· cited 6×
Cites
4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced 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.