CAROTHERS
v.
MAYER
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.
The Supreme Court affirmed a Montana court's decision in a mining claim dispute, holding that a statute of limitations does not begin to run against a mining claim until a patent is issued, and that matters of estoppel arising before patent issuance cannot serve as a defense after the patent has been granted. The Court dismissed the writ of error because the defendants' arguments presented no federal question, as they relied solely on state law concerning limitations and equitable estoppel rather than federal patent rights.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Beown,
after stating the case, delivered the' opinion of the court.
Upon the facts above stated, the Supreme Court held, first, that the statute of limitations did not begin to run against the mining claim Until the patent had been issued, following in this particular King v. Thomas, 6 Montana, 409; and, second, that the matters alleged as an estoppel having taken place before the time the plaintiffs made their application for a patent, and notice of such application having been given, that all adverse claimants were given an opportunity of contesting the applicant’s right to a patent, and that the patent having been issued, it was too late to base a defence upon facts existing prior thereto, citing in support of its position a prior ruling of-the court in Talbott v. King, 6 Montana, 76.
Neither of these defences presents a. Federal question. Defendants asserted no right under a Federal statute; made no claim under any Federal patent; claimed solely under a statute of limitations, which the highest court of the State declared did not protect them, and certain matters of alleged estoppel in pais, which the court held to constitute no defence.
The writ of error-must, therefore, be
Dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Creswill v. Grand Lodge Knights of Pythias of Ga., 225 U.S. 246 (U.S. 1912)…t lost or that it cannot be interfered with because of laches on the other side. In a case where the state court held that there [*264] was no defense under the statute of limitations or estoppel, the writ of error was dismissed. Carothers v. Mayer, 164 U. S. 325. I will content myself with saying that I do not see how the decision can be reversed on the ground of laches. Mr. . Justice Lurton concurs in this view and is of opinion that the writ should be dismissed.…
-
Terre Haute & Indianapolis R.R. Co. v. Indiana ex rel. Ketcham, 194 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1904)
-
Moran v. Horsky, 178 U.S. 205 (U.S. 1900)…vate right which he is relying upon, although a right created under the laws of the United States, and as to this private right he is subjected to the ordinary rules in- respect to the enforcement and protection of'such a right. Carothers v. Mayer, 164 U. S. 325, is worthy of notice, for in that case, although not under precisely similar circumstances, it was "held that a question arising under the statute of limitations as against a title asserted under the Federal law presented no Federal question, and so…
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