Mammoth Mining Co. v. Grand Central Mining Co.

Citations

• 213 U.S. 72
• 29 S. Ct. 413
• 53 L. Ed. 702
• 1909 U.S. LEXIS 1854

Syllabus

<p>In reviewing the judgment of a state court under § 709, Rev. Stat., findings of fact resting on a false definition of a right' existing under a Federal statute cannot be assumed to be correct and may be reconsidered; but the evidence will not be discussed here, and this court considers only whether there has been a mistake of law.</p> <p>Where the trial court merely called in an advisory jury and in the highest ■ court of the State on appeal the evidence was discussed and the.find- . ings reestablished, reversal by this court can only be based on errors, if any, in opinion of the highest' court.</p> <p>Where the state court has found on the facts based on the evidence that ' the vein of plaintiff in error did not extend under the claim of defendant in error, an expression of opinion that there'is a difference between a lode sufficient to validate a location under § 2322, Rev. Stat., and an apex giving extralateral rights (not decided by this court, Lawson v. United States Mining Co., 207 U. S. 1) is not necessary to the result, and does not deny a Federal right and this court has not jurisdiction to review the judgment under § 709, Rev. Stat. .</p> <p>Writ of error to review 29 Utah, 490, dismissed. •</p>