United States Court of Appeals For the Ninth Circuit . sterlyboundary line of the Stewart Fraction claim, the line1-2-3 o^ Figure 2 extended indefinitely includes the ore bodies in dispute underneath theOntario claim, and the segments of the vein under-neath the properties of the Appellees, Bunker Hill & Sullivan M. and C. Co. and the Sierra Nevada Mi-ning Company which are shown on Figure i ante. The facts as illustrated on Figure 2 are practicallyconceded. The general course of the vein along theline nearest to the surface is from A to B. This apexdoes not appear at the surfac
United States Court of Appeals For the Ninth Circuit . sterlyboundary line of the Stewart Fraction claim, the line1-2-3 o^ Figure 2 extended indefinitely includes the ore bodies in dispute underneath theOntario claim, and the segments of the vein under-neath the properties of the Appellees, Bunker Hill & Sullivan M. and C. Co. and the Sierra Nevada Mi-ning Company which are shown on Figure i ante. The facts as illustrated on Figure 2 are practicallyconceded. The general course of the vein along theline nearest to the surface is from A to B. This apexdoes not appear at the surface, but is blind. AtB the course is interrupted by a great fault, desig-nated on Figure 2 as the Osborne Fault. The plane ofthis fault dips to the Southerly and Westerly, inter-secting and under cutting the plane of the vein. It is somewhat difficult to exhibit this situationthrough the medium of an isometric figure, but anattempt has been made to produce a stereogram (Fig-ure 3), which conveys a more or less accurate concep-tion of the Figure 3. The contention of the Appellant in the cases at baris idealized by location X-Y as indicated on the Figure3. From no portion of the end edge of the vein cov-ered by this location is there any dip, and hence thereis no apex contained therein on which to predicate anextralateral right. An inspection of the large model, Defendants Ex-hibit L, and the plan map, Defendants Exhibit B,will demonstrate the conditions as nearly as they canbe reproduced on a small scale. The contention of Appellant in the case in the StateCourt in the Ontario case, and in the cases at bar, isthat the line of intersection of the vein with the faultplane is an apex; in other words, the apex of the veinon Figures 2 and 3 is the entire underground exposureA-B-C. The State trial Court decided that this line of inter-section of the fault with the vein represented on theFigures 2 and 3 by the line B-C, was not the top orapex, but the side edge of the vein, a
Size: 1643px × 1521px
Photo credit: © The Reading Room / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookauthorunitedstatescourtofap, bookcentury1900, bookdecade1910
