United States Court of Appeals For the Ninth Circuit . he hill was thetop, or apex, of the vein. It was not necessary to doso in order to defeat the extralateral right claimed bythe Sitting Bull. But if the owner of a locationcovering the outcrop on the western slope should pur-sue his vein easterly with his underground works soas to intersect the workings of the Sitting Bull, show-ing identity and continuity, and establishing that theangles of declination disclosed in such workings werethe same as in the case proved, the conclusion is irre-sistible that the western outcrop would be the trueap
United States Court of Appeals For the Ninth Circuit . he hill was thetop, or apex, of the vein. It was not necessary to doso in order to defeat the extralateral right claimed bythe Sitting Bull. But if the owner of a locationcovering the outcrop on the western slope should pur-sue his vein easterly with his underground works soas to intersect the workings of the Sitting Bull, show-ing identity and continuity, and establishing that theangles of declination disclosed in such workings werethe same as in the case proved, the conclusion is irre-sistible that the western outcrop would be the trueapex of the vein, and this is in consonance with therule applied to veins of steeper inclination. Mr. Costigan in his work on Mining Law, page 138,gives these deductions from the opinion of the Courtin the Duggan-Davey case his approval. The Idaho case of Gilpin vs. Sierra Nevada , Co. (2 Idaho, 362; 23 Pac, 547; 17 Morr. Min. 21 Rep., 310), shows a state of facts similar to that ap-pearing in the South Dakota case, and is illustratedon Figure Figure 9. The location of the defendants claim, the SierraNevada, was upon the outcropping side edge of thevein following the dip, the line of exposure or outcropbeing shown on Figure 9 by the zigzag line withinthe Sierra Nevada claim. The defendants works,following the vein on the strike by tunnels driven atright angles to the outcrop, extended underneath thesurface of plaintiffs claims, the Apex and the Ram-bler. An injunction was sought and denied by the lowerCourt. The Supreme Court of Idaho reversed theorder and directed an injunction principally on theground that the location of the Sierra Nevada did not 22 cover the apex, and that the showing made did notjustify or authorize its presence underneath the plain-tiffs surface. The facts in the case at bar are much less embar-rassing than those which the courts were called uponto consider in the Duggan-Davey and Sierra Nevadacases, owing to the differences in the character of th
Size: 1490px × 1678px
Photo credit: © The Reading Room / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookauthorunitedstatescourtofap, bookcentury1900, bookdecade1910
