MINING COMPANY
v.
BOGGS
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 company sought review of a California Supreme Court decision denying its right to possess land for mineral extraction, claiming it had a license from either state or federal authority. The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the writ of error for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the state court's decision rested on a factual finding that no such license existed, rather than on a judgment invalidating a claimed federal authority, treaty, or statute, and therefore did not present a federal question reviewable by the Supreme Court under the Judiciary Act.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court.
No question is raised by the pleadings, of which this court has jurisdiction upon writs of error to the Supreme Court of California, unless by the allegation of prior possession of this land for the purpose of taking out the minerals. But this allegation does not set up any authority exercised under the United States in taking such possession, nor any treaty or statute of the United States, in virtue of which it was taken. Nor does it anywhere appear from the record that the decision of the State court was against the validity of any such authority, treaty, or statute. The ease brought before us is, therefore, wanting in the requirement made essential to our jurisdiction by the 25th section of the Judiciary Act.
If we were at liberty to look into the opinion of the court for the purpose of ascertaining what questions were made on the argument, and decided by the court, we should find that, upon a liberal construction of the stipulations of counsel, the defendants were allowed to insist that they were warranted in their possession of the lands, for the purpose of extracting the minerals, by a license inferred from tbe general policy of the State or of the United States, in relation to mines of gold and silver and the lands containing them.
We doubt whether such a claim, even if made in the pleadings, ivould be such an allegation as would give jurisdiction to this court.
However that may be, there was no decision of the court against the validity of such a license. The decision was, that no such license existed; and this was a finding by the court of a question of fact upon the submission of the whole case by the parties, rather than a judgment upon a question of law.
It is the same case, in principle, as would be made by an allegation in defence to an action of ejectment, of a patent from the United States with an averment of its loss or de-' struction, and a finding by the jury that no such patent existed, and a consequent judgment for the defendant. Such a judgment would deny, not the validity, but the existence of the patent. And this court would have no jurisdiction to review it.
The writ of error must, therefore, be
Dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cedar Rapids Gas Light Co. v. City of Cedar Rapids, 223 U.S. 655 (U.S. 1912)
-
Baltimore & Potomac R.R. Co. v. Hopkins, 130 U.S. 210 (U.S. 1889)…ed offered in evidence and dbjeeted to as not having stamps proportioned to the value of the land conveyed, were sufficient, was held not a subject for review by this court under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act; and in Mining Company v. Boggs, 3 Wall. 304, 310, which was ar action .of ejeptment [*225] brought for the possession of certain mineral lands in California;, where the defendant contended that he was in possession by virtue of an authority inferred from the general policy of the United State…
-
Atchison v. Robinson, 233 U.S. 173 (U.S. 1914)
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Farnet v. Towle, 1 Black 350 (U.S. 1861)