United States Court of Appeals For the Ninth Circuit . e ran through two parallel end lines ofan ideal location, such location would have extra-lateral rights on all secondary or incidental veinsapexing therein, for the full length of the claim,while the length of the apex of such secondaryvein, within the claim, might be only a few cannot impugn such an absurd conclusion tothe greatest court in the world. It is very appar-ent from the opinion, that such conclusion neverentered the minds of the judges of that court. TheDel Monte case (171 U. S., 55) was decided onthe same day, and in t
United States Court of Appeals For the Ninth Circuit . e ran through two parallel end lines ofan ideal location, such location would have extra-lateral rights on all secondary or incidental veinsapexing therein, for the full length of the claim,while the length of the apex of such secondaryvein, within the claim, might be only a few cannot impugn such an absurd conclusion tothe greatest court in the world. It is very appar-ent from the opinion, that such conclusion neverentered the minds of the judges of that court. TheDel Monte case (171 U. S., 55) was decided onthe same day, and in that case, the Court announcedthe rule that a greater length along the strike ofa vein extralaterally, than the length of the apexwithin the location, should not be given. TheCourt, in the Walrath case, cites and quotes fromthe Del Monte case, and relies upon it as an au-thority. The case of Davis vs. Shepherd, 31 Colo., 150, iscited by appellants counsel in support of the samecontention. The following diagram will illustrate thefacts there Diagram B. In that case the apex of the vein in question crossedthe southerly side line of the Fairmount 195A claimand within a few feet this apex passed out throughthe easterly end line of the same claim. The casehas no application to the case at bar since the apex ofthe vein here in controversy does not pass out throughthe Senator Stewart Fraction end line. Counsel for appellant also cite the case of JeffersonCo. vs. Anchoria-Leland Co., 32 Colo., 176, which italso contends is authority in support of the sameproposition. 8 The following diagram, based upon the one accom-panying the opinion of the Court, but slightly elab-orated, will illustrate the facts involved. ANCHOR ^COI5*g^»IJ1^V£l« &EMIOR kOCATlOn
Size: 1569px × 1593px
Photo credit: © The Reading Room / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookauthorunitedstatescourtofap, bookcentury1900, bookdecade1910
