EILERS
v.
BOATMAN & OTHERS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Eilers contested the priority of a mining claim located in Utah, arguing that the notice and description of the defendants' Nabob mining claim were insufficient to properly identify its location to other prospectors. The Supreme Court affirmed the Utah Supreme Court's judgment, holding that the notice contained an adequate description by reference to natural objects and monuments, and that the claim was properly marked on the ground so its boundaries could be readily determined. The Court also emphasized that under federal law, it must accept the factual findings of territorial courts as true on appeal.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Miller delivered the opinion of the court.
This, like Chambers v. Harrington, ante, 350, is an appeal from the decree of the Supreme Court of Utah in a contest for a mine carried on under § 2326 of the Revised Statutes.
The appellant does not deny the prmrity of location, or the .continuous work on the Nabob — the claim of the appellee— but insists that the notice and description of the claim of the defendants were not sufficient to apprise other prospectors of its precise location.
This, in the first place, is matter of' fact, and was found by the court below against appellant, for we think that the following language, though called by the judge a conclusion of law, is really a finding of facts, namely:
“ 1. That the notice of the location of the Nabob mining claim contained a sufficient description by reference to natural objects and permanent and well-known monuments to identify the same.
“ 2. That said Nabob claim was so marked on the ground that its boundaries could be readily placed.”
If, however, we revert to the specific findings of fact so named in the record, we think the second and fourth findings, which give a more minute description of the courses, distances, natural objects, and stakes, justify the two conclusions above recited.
A point is made by appellant that the Flagstaff Mining Company was in possession of the lode at the time the Nabob claim was located.
We do not see how this would improve the subsequent location of appellant.
But it-is sufficient to say that no such finding is made by the court in regard to the Flagstaff claim.
By chapter 80 of the acts of Congress, approved April 7, 1874,18 Stat. 27, this court is required to accept the findings of fact made by the Supreme Courts of the Territories as true on appeal to this court. See Stringfellow v. Cain, 99 U. S. 610; Hecht v. Boughton, 105 U. S. 235.
In this case the Supreme Court in its judgment affirms the findings of the District Court. As we think the judgment of the Supreme Court of Utah was right on the facts so found, there is nothing left but to
Affirm the judgment, and it is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harrison v. Perea, 168 U.S. 311 (U.S. 1897)…part from exceptions duly taken to rulings on the admission or rejection of evidence, is limited to determining whether the findings of fact support the judgment. Stringfellow v. Cain, 99 U. S. 610; Neslin v. Wells, 104 U. S. 428; Eilers v. Boatman, 111 U. S. 356; Idaho and Oregon Land Company v. Bradbury, 132 U. S. 509; Mammoth Mining Company v. Salt Lake Machine Company, 151 U. S. 447, 450; Haws v. Victoria Copper Miming Company, 160 U. S. 303; Gildersleeve v. Hew Mexico Mining Company, 161 U. S. 573; Bear…
-
Idaho & Or. Land Improvement Co. v. Bradbury, 132 U.S. 509 (U.S. 1889)…ce, or its sufficiency to support the conclusions of the court. Stringfellow v. Cain, 99 U. S. 610; Cannon v. Pratt, 99 U. S. 619; Neslin v. Wells, 104 U. S. 428; Hecht v. Boughton, 105 U. S. 235, 236; Gray v. Howe, 108 U. S. 12; Eilers v. Boat-man, 111 U. S. 356; Zeckendorf v. Johnson, 123 U. S. 617. The present suit was brought to enforce a mechanic’s lien created by the statutes of the Territory, which authorize the court in such a suit to order both a sale of the real estate that is subject to the lien,…
-
De la Rama v. De la Rama, 201 U.S. 303 (U.S. 1906)…e findings of fact supported the judgment, and to reviewing errors in the admission or rejection of testimony, when exceptions have been duly taken to the action of the court in this particular. Stringfellow v. Cain, 99 U. S. 610; Eilers v. Boatman, 111 U. S. 356; Idaho &c. Land Co. v. Bradbury, 132 U. S. 509; Mammoth Mining Company v. Salt Lake Machine Co., 151 U. S. 447; Young v. Amy, 171 U. S. 179. This act, however, has no application to the Philippine Islands, appeals from the Supreme Court of .which-a…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Stringfellow v. Cain, 99 U.S. 610 (U.S. 1878)
- Hecht v. Boughton, 105 U.S. 235 (U.S. 1881)