LOWRY
v.
SILVER CITY GOLD AND SILVER MINING COMPANY
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.
Two lessees of a mining company attempted to appropriate mineral claims that the company had long possessed and developed, arguing that a later claim location included the original discovery shaft of their leasehold. The Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the action, holding that the lessees were estopped by the terms of their lease from challenging the mining company's superior claim to the property. The decision established that parties in possession of mining claims under lease cannot use legal proceedings to divest the lessor of long-held property rights.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Brewer,
after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.
This was plainly an attempt on the part of the plaintiffs in error — two of whom were lessees of the defendant in error— under the forms of law to appropriate to themselves property which for years had been in the unchallenged possession of the defendant in error, and upon which it had expended many hundreds of dollars. That such attempt was unsuccessful in the courts is no more than was to be expected.
The Supreme Court of the State placed its decisions upon two grounds: First, that although the Evening Star claim included the original discovery shaft of the Wheeler claim, it did not thereby destroy that claim in view of the fact that long prior to the location of the Evening Star the owners of the Wheeler had located a new shaft and developed the mine in that shaft. Gwillim v. Donnellan, 115 U. S. 45, was held not applicable. The other ground was estoppel by virtue of the lease under which two of the plaintiffs in error acquired possession. While the former ground is the one principally discussed in the opinion, the latter was adverted to in a few words at its close. The latter is sufficient to dispose of the case in this court. Eustis v. Bolles, 150 U. S. 361. See also De Lamar's Nevada Gold Mining Company v. Nesbitt, 177 U. S. 523, and cases cited in the opinion. The writ of error is
Dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Enter. Irrigation Dist. v. Farmers Mut. Canal Co., 243 U.S. 157 (U.S. 1917)…thern Pacific Co. v. Sehuyler, 227 U. S. 601, 610. It has been so held in cases where the judgment was rested upon a federal ground and also upon an estoppel. Pierce v. Somerset Ry., 171 U. S. 641, 648; Lowry v. Silver City Gold & Silver Mining Co., 179 U. S. 196.1 But where the non-federal ground is so interwoven with the other as not to be an independent matter, or is not of sufficient breadth to sustain the judgment without any decision of the other, our jurisdiction is plain. See Moran v. Horsky, 178 U.…
-
Bell Tel. Co. v. Van Dyke, 296 U.S. 533 (U.S. 1935)…ground adequate to support it. Enterprise Irrigation District v. Canal Co., 243 U. S. 157, 162, 165; Utley v. St. Petersburg, 292 U. S. 106, 111; Mobile, J. & K. C. R. Co. v. Mississippi, 210 U. S. 187, 204; Lowry v. Silver City G. & S. Mining Co., 179 U. S. 196, 198.…
Authorities Cited
- Eustis v. Bolles, 150 U.S. 361 (U.S. 1893)
- Gwillim v. Donnellan & Another, 115 U.S. 45 (U.S. 1885)
- De Lamar's Nev. Gold Mining Co. v. Nesbitt, 177 U.S. 523 (U.S. 1900)