United States Court of Appeals For the Ninth Circuit . at right angles to thecourse which the apex of the discovery vein must bepresumed to take if appellants contention be Providence-Champion case has no applicationhere for the facts are not at all similar. However, even if we assume for the sake of argu-ment, that the facts of the Providence-Champion caseand the case at bar were similar enough so that ap-pellant could invoke the rule he contends was laid down in the former case, the very greatest doubt hasbeen cast upon the intention of the Court in that caseto decide that the e
United States Court of Appeals For the Ninth Circuit . at right angles to thecourse which the apex of the discovery vein must bepresumed to take if appellants contention be Providence-Champion case has no applicationhere for the facts are not at all similar. However, even if we assume for the sake of argu-ment, that the facts of the Providence-Champion caseand the case at bar were similar enough so that ap-pellant could invoke the rule he contends was laid down in the former case, the very greatest doubt hasbeen cast upon the intention of the Court in that caseto decide that the extralateral right on a secondaryvein shall be measured by the identical planes v^hichmeasure the extralateral rights on the discovery writer of this brief happened to be counsel forthe Champion Company throughout that cross-appeal was taken by the Champion Com-pany to either of the Appellate Courts for economicreasons. For convenient reference the following dia-gram illustrating the facts of the Providence case ishere Diagra All of the vein lying north of the plane v-v parallelto the northerly Providence end line gh and passedthrough the point v where the apex of the secondaryvein departed from the Providence claim in a north-erly direction had been worked out years before thelitigation arose. This strip of ground between thisplane v-v and the northerly end line plane gh waspractically valueless, and for that reason no attemptwas made by the Champion Company on either ofthe appeals to confine the Providence Company in theexercise of an extralateral right on the secondary veinto the length of the apex of the secondary vein foundwithin the claim. That this case should not be considered as an au-thority in support of appellants contention is veryevident from the following expressions of opinion: Mr. Henry Arnold in a very able and analyticalreview of the effect of this decision, found in HarvardLaw Review, Volume 22, page 284, says: But if that be
Size: 1590px × 1572px
Photo credit: © The Reading Room / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookauthorunitedstatescourtofap, bookcentury1900, bookdecade1910
