GILLIS
v.
STINCHFIELD
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.
A mining dispute involving rights to extract gold from intersecting veins was decided by the California Supreme Court on estoppel grounds under state law and a state statute regarding conveyances, without deciding the federal mining law questions raised by the losing party. The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the writ of error because the state court's judgment rested on an independent state law ground adequate to support the decision, which precluded federal jurisdiction over the claimed federal mining law issues.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
The Chief Justice:
Neither in the pleadings nor in the proceedings during the trial, nor in the specifications of error below, was any Federal question specifically raised, nor was any right, title, privilege, or immunity of a Federal náture set up or claimed. Sayward v. Denny, 158 U. S. 180. It is, howevér, contended that the record shows that a Federal question arose in the case, as considered by both the Superior and the Supreme Courts, and was decided adversely to plain-, tiffs in error, namely, that Gillis had the right to follow what was known as the Rice vein, which had its apex on the Carrington mine, upon its dip, beneath the surface of the 'Pine Tree mine, and to appropriate to his own use the gold found in that vein at the point of its intersection with the so-called West vein, which had its apex on the Pine Tree mine, because the Carrington mine was the older or prior location; and that this could only be determined by an application of sections 2322 and 2336 of the Bevised Statutes. But the decision of the Supreme Court was clearly based upon the estoppel deemed by that court to operate against plaintiffs in. error upon general principles of law and the statute of California in respect of such a conveyance as that to Stinchfield, irrespective of any Federal question. And this was an independent ground broad enough to maintain the judgment. The writ of error must, therefore, be dismissed. EusUs v. Bolles, 150 U. S. 361; Rutland Railroad Co. v. -Central Vermont Railroad Co., 159 U. S. 630.
Writ of error dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Logan v. Davis, 233 U.S. 613 (U.S. 1914)
-
Enter. Irrigation Dist. v. Farmers Mut. Canal Co., 243 U.S. 157 (U.S. 1917)…m of unwarranted or arbitrary discrimination. It results from what has been said that the judgment is one which is not open to review by this court. Writ of error dismissed. See also Sherman v. Grinnell, 144 U. S. 198, 202; Gillis v. Stinchfield, 159 U. S. 658, 660; Hale v. Lewis, 181 U. S. 473, 479-480.…
-
Blackburn v. Portland Gold Mining Co., 175 U.S. 571 (U.S. 1900)…the controversy was determinable by one of two conflicting constructions of the Federal statute, and not one of mere- fact in which the validity of the statute was not drawn into question. A similar principle was involved in Gillis v. Stinchfield, 159 U. S. 658. That was a suit brought in a state court of California and concerned the ownership of a mining claim. The case was brought to this court, and it was claimed that, as the question in dispute could only be determined by an application of sections 232…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Eustis v. Bolles, 150 U.S. 361 (U.S. 1893)
- Sayward v. Denny, 158 U.S. 180 (U.S. 1895)
- Rutland R.R. Co. v. Cent. Vt. R.R. Co., 159 U.S. 630 (U.S. 1895)