United States Court of Appeals For the Ninth Circuit . I The Black Rock was the older claim with part ofthe apex. The ore bodies in dispute were underneaththe Black Rock surface beyond the point where thevein passed out of the side-line common to the twoclaims. Such ore bodies were in a sense intralimitalto the Black Rock, but extralateral to the State Court and the Supreme Court of theUnited States in effect denied to the Black Rock anyintralimital rights on that portion of the vein under-neath its surface extending beyond the point wherethe apex crossed the side-line, awarding su
United States Court of Appeals For the Ninth Circuit . I The Black Rock was the older claim with part ofthe apex. The ore bodies in dispute were underneaththe Black Rock surface beyond the point where thevein passed out of the side-line common to the twoclaims. Such ore bodies were in a sense intralimitalto the Black Rock, but extralateral to the State Court and the Supreme Court of theUnited States in effect denied to the Black Rock anyintralimital rights on that portion of the vein under-neath its surface extending beyond the point wherethe apex crossed the side-line, awarding such under-ground parts to the Niagara—the junior claim—under its extralateral right. The case of Ajax Gold M. Co. vs. Hilkey, 31 Colo.,131, decided by the same Court that decided theJefferson-Anchoria case, but at an earlier date, in ouropinion, expresses tne correct rule to the effect thatthe extralateral right on a secondary vein is deter-mined by the length of apex of the secondary veinfound in the claim. This case is illustrated by Dia-gram Diagram E. 12 The Ajax Company owned the Victor Consolidatedclaim. The discovery vein B-B crossed the southerlyend line and proceeding in a northerly directionpassed out of the east side-line. The secondary veinA-A passed diagonally through the claim crossingboth side lines. The defendant Hilkey owned theTriumph adjoining the Victor on the west. The sec-ondary vein in the Victor on its downward courseentered underneath the surface of the Triumph, andthe controversy was over the ore bodies underneaththe surface of this claim. The Ajax company claimedthat its extralateral right in the secondary vein wasto be defined by the application of the plane D-Dparallel to the end-line on the original 1-4 at thepoint where the vein crossed the west side-line of theVictor. The Triumph owner contended that as theextralateral right on the original lode was to be de-fined and limited by the plane C-C drawn throughthe point where the discovery vein
Size: 2518px × 992px
Photo credit: © The Reading Room / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookauthorunitedstatescourtofap, bookcentury1900, bookdecade1910
