QUIMBY
v.
BOYD
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.
In this mining dispute, the Supreme Court dismissed a writ of error challenging a Colorado court's judgment awarding the Paymaster Lode mining claim to the defendants, who had purchased it from the original locator under federal mining law. The Court held that because the trial and state appellate courts did not question whether the claim properly followed the vein's course with parallel side lines, this matter could not be raised for the first time on appeal, and the remaining issues involved questions of fact or state law rather than federal law. The dismissal affirmed the lower courts' decision in favor of the defendants.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller delivered the. opinion of the court.
This is a writ of error to a judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado in affirmance of a judgment rendered on a verdict in favor of-defendants in error in the District Court of El Paso County, in that State, against plaintiffs in error, for the recovery of a certain lode and mining claim known as the Paymaster Lode, Situated in the Monarch Mining. District in Chaffee County, Colorado, which defendants in error alleged had been duly located under the mining laws' of the United States by one Shepard, from whom they purchased, and. upon which plaintiffs in error had, as they averred, unlawfully entered.
The errors assigned are that the court erred in' holding the record to have sufficiently identified the mining claim of defendants in error; that the record of such claim, “three hundred feet wide by fifteen hundred feet in length, was valid without reference to the vein or its relative position to the. boundaries;” that the original location in-marking the bound: aries of the claim might, in that mining'district, “where cláims were limited to one hundred and fifty feet on each side of the centre of the vein, take thirty-three feet on one side and.make up for the deficiency by taking two hundred and sixty-seven feet on the other side; that the annual labor performed by defendants in error on their alleged claim for the year 1880 “ should not be measured by its actual value when doné, but by a speculative value in advance; ” that judgment should have been given for plaintiffs in error, and not for defendants in error. We do not find that in the trial court or in the Supreme Court of the State the fact that the claim of plaintiffs' below followed in its length the general course of the vein, or that the side lines were substantially parallel with, and the end lines at,.right angles to, the vein, was drawn in question, and it is therefore too late to do so here as the basis of jurisdiction, and in our view the other alleged errors involved questions either of fact or of state and not of Federal law.
The motion to dismiss the writ of error is therefore sustained.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
ST. Louis v. Craft, 237 U.S. 648 (U.S. 1915)
-
Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. State OF Tex. (NO. 1), 212 U.S. 86 (U.S. 1909)…dings of facts made in the state court, but accepts the findings of the court of the State upon matters of fact as conclusive, and is confined to a review of questions of Federal law within the jurisdiction conferred upon this court. Quimby v. Boyd, 128 U. S. 488; Egan v. Hart, 165 U. S. 188; Dower v. Richards, 151 U. S. 658; Thayer v. Spralt, 189 [*98] U. S. 346. We shall not, therefore, undertake to follow counsel in the consideration of all the questions argued, but shall limit our review to questions of…
-
Dower v. Richards, 151 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1894)…Chief Justice, dismissed the writ of error for want Of jurisdiction, because some of the objections made in this court had not been taken below, and “ the other alleged errors involved questions, either of fact, or of state and not of Federal law.” 128 U. S. 488, 489. In California Powder Works v. Davis, ante, 389, in which each party to a suit to quiet title claimed under a patent from. the United States confirming, a Mexican giant, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of California rested on the proposi…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence